Proceedings of the XXII World Congress of Philosophy

The author investigates some Plotinus’ metaphors such as: war as the father of all things, universal life as a theatre performance, longings, works and horrors of bloody terrestrial life as a childish "external game", a battle as pyrrhic… All the mentioned metaphors are important for correct interpretation of ideas by the late Hellenistic philosopher. Plotinus’ doctrine of chaocosmic harmony is stated in its comparison with the data of modern science (of synergetics). The author of the paper confirms a conclusion that the oriental ideas range exerted influence on the great Antique thinker’s creative work. This influence was mediated and included Plato as an intermediary.

By studying history, we understand that religion in different ages is influenced by the culture of people. This reality signals the probability of that religion is made by people and it is the product of man in history. This probability indeed ignores the divinity of religion and presents it only as a human product. But is there only one probability for human influence? We should survey the relation between the human and divine in religion to clarify this question. By surveying this relation, we understand that there is a fundamental discontinuity between the divine and human realms. Different objects could cause this discontinuity, but the most fundamental object is the power that causes the excellence and mastery of divine and fundamental discontinuity. If the power only is regarded, the probability ofhumanity of religion increases. But other objects may be regarded. If wisdom has an important place in the discontinuity, there is a probability for the influence of the human. It is wise divine variation of religion that correlates the eternal variation of the human.

Most religions share the belief that love is the supreme truth of the ultimate reality and also of all human beings. The ultimate reality is characterized by the absolute love for all beings. And authentic human life consists in embodying the divine love as far as possible. The religious-meaning of love can be interpreted in terms of the panentheistic conceptuality provided process philosophers such as Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne. Hartshorne’s mind-body analogy is helpful in particular. The ultimate reality is the mind of the world. And the world is the body of the ultimate reality. Love as communion or mutualparticipation is experienced paradigmatically in the interaction between mind and body. Existential embodiment of the divine love is a necessary ingredient of authentic human life. And our love needs to be expanded more and more toward the limit of God’s cosmic love. If one expands one’s love to the greatest possible degree, one may be able to include the whole world as one’s body.

In Part 9 of David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, a series of five criticisms is presented against the Cosmological-Ontological Proof of God’s necessary existence. In essence, the Cosmological-Ontological Proof seeks to establish that that the chain of causes and effects that constitutes the world, despite being eternal, requires a cause, in virtue of the contingency of the chain and its members. The argument attempts to defend the position that, of the four possible causal explanations for the chain of causes and effects -a contingent being that exists outside the chain; chance; nothing (in the Aristotelian sense of thisterm); or a necessarily existent being-only the latter can be successfully defended, leading to the conclusion that the cause of the world is a necessarily existent being. Of the five criticisms directed against this argument in Part 9 of the Dialogues, the fourth of these is the one that is most neglected in the literature: it is this criticism that I have selected for discussion in my paper. This criticism holds that since the causal chain is held to be eternal, it cannot have a cause, given that causal relations require temporal priority in the cause in relation to the effect, and that the effect be a new existent. However, since the Cosmological-OntologicalProof insists on the contingency of the causal chain as a whole and of each of its members, the fourth criticism is not regarded as a relevant criticism, inasmuch as all contingent beings require a cause in order for them to exist, and this includes the eternal causal chain that constitutes the world. In my paper, I attempt to support the fourth criticism of the Cosmological-Ontological Proof, by establishing that, in the context of this argument, the contingency of the causal chain and its members is not sufficient to establish that the chain must have a cause.

The report reasons over the role of the religion in the course of the historic development of the so called “homo sapiens” and in the context of his aspirations to a world community which parallely went along both in secular and in religious aspect. It analyses the common features and differences between the world religions and world empires underlining that the world religions were the closest ones to materializing the dream about community of mankind due to the fact that they contain the thorough models of human behaviour.This report underlines that at the contemporary degradation of values and institutions and with the increasing state of world chaos, the religion restores its positions. As a symbol of common cognition of the world, philosophy is able to give meaning not only to the alternatives of the chaos, but to the contemporary role of the religion for establishing new thorough orientation of the contemporary mankind.

Philosophy and religion keep close connection by the intermediary belief of philosophers. The Greek philosophers criticized the object of masses’ and themselves religion depending on their rationality, finally gave up the masses’ belief and its object (religion). The Christian thinkers defended the masses’ religion and its object based upon philosophy and rationality. Modern philosophers appeared, going on with tradition of Greek philosophers, they reflected and criticized belief and its object, finally break away from masses ’ belief and its object and found themselves system of philosophy, and defended their belief and its object.In this way, philosophy broke away from traditional religion (Christianity). After the ancient philosophy of German, the philosophy is on the way of religion criticism; this phenomenon is related to the science directly. The philosophy which is not restricted by the religion could not help itself in the scientific world view. The philosophers who are swayed in the room between religion and science have not found their fairyland concerning the belief; as a result, their belief is thespian. The philosophy which could overcome the belief tragedy could be the other kind of philosophy. The western philosophy was searching for this new kind perpetually. This new kind of philosophy will emerge and boost in culture field.

Une approche philosophique de la prière à des fins politiques est possible dans le cas où les deux substantifs sont mis en relais inconditionnel. Le premier élément responsable de cette filature des liens c’est la présence de l’autre. Prier et faire de la politique sont deux activités humaines trop humaines qui exigent l’ouverture à l’autre, pour l’autre comme pour l’édification de sa propre identité individuelle et collective. Comme les rites et les cultes, la liturgie, notamment la prière collective, a un effet thérapeutique, et pédagogique, disons didactique et sociopolitique. Elle calme les esprits, la volonté, apaise l’angoisse et solidifie les liens sociaux. L'Eglise, par exemple, est née du rassemblement du peuple de Dieu en prière et c'est dans son sein que toute célébration liturgique trouve perpétuellement son accomplissement aussi bien que sa régénération dans l’invocation du nom du Christ-Vérité, Rédempteur, Fondateur, Roi et Prêtre. La présente étude sur « Vérité et Royauté » focalise l’attention sur l’essence même du politique qui se nourrit du religieux tout en lui fournissant gloire, pouvoir et moyens d’existence.

The philosophical thought of Nicolas Malebranche (1638-1713) does not constitute two aspects of a spirit or a man that is that of the man of God and that of the man of letters. Malebranche, as a successor of Descartes in the history of European philosophy, although God is not the wise for him but He is wisdom and science Himself. For Malebrache, God is the reason of the world. God, as a substantial source, is able to create the ideas of the spirit of man and motivate his body. However, there is an archetypal idea of soul which comes in front of the body. According to the mentioned metaphysical definition, God is not doubtable in soul which is related to his Word. Malebranche introduces a rationalism emerging the mathematical values to provide an accurate and justifiable idea for Godbecause the continuous search of truth within sciences and our fear of a false existence can find answers in the system of arithmetic and algebra. Therefore, Malebranche’s thought constitutes “an intellectual mystic” denoting the connection of logic and belief.

The paper deals with the problem how the relation between religions and philosophies can be thought in our contemporary world of technical and economocial globalization and intercultural connection of all world regions. In a first step, seven types of possible relations between spiritual and rational discourses are distinguished: From a philosophical point of view, two different models of separation and two different models of union between philosophy and religion are pointed out. From a religious perspective, the possible relations to philosophy can be described by the models of (1) exclusivm, (2) inklusivm and (3) a religiousform which negates a clear separation between spiritual and rational methods of finding the truth. Based on this systematic clearification, two arguments, in a second step, are developed from an intercultural perspective: 1) Each religion implies ontological and ethical presuppositions which can be brought into terms by philosophy. It is this philosophical explanation that allows a religion to be rationally discussed. 2) The transcultural character of a religion depends on its capacity to integrate philosophical thinking. Only by means of rational discussion, a spiritual system can become a transcultural power which contributes to adeeper understanding between different cultures.

The planetary civilization we are having affects positively world's religions. The former model, based on the isolation, suspicion and competency among religions, is being substituted for the search of common ties of those religions. The interreligious dialogue does not intend to eliminate the religious differences in order to create a common religion. On the contrary, starting from these differences, we are interested in those unity ties shared by all of them, beginning with the ethical-moral values. This contribution of religions to the creation of universal ethics is the first fruit of the interreligious dialogue. In the second part we analyse the relationship of the Christian religion with the others. Nowadays it is not understood to defend an absolutist conception of truth. Although Truth is unique, it is possessed in a multiple manner. That's why the interreligious dialogue is needed.

En este escrito intento exponer la manera en que establezco una relación entre la filosofía de la ciencia social y la teoría social. Lo anterior se da “incidentalmente” a partir de mi propio trabajo en teoría social; el cual se origina en la Teoría de la Estructuración de Anthony Giddens y actualmente involucra al Naturalismo Crítico. Mi interés original en la teoría social, el cual giraba en torno al trato que Giddens le da a la dualidad agente-estructura a través de su Teoría de la Estructuración, me llevó a conocer la teorización social realista de Margaret Archer. De esa forma me comienzo a empapar del Realismo Crítico de Roy Bhaskar, que en su vertiente filosófica fundamenta la teoría social de Archer, y eventual y necesariamente, como parte de mi interés actual por analizar la teoríasocial realista, empiezo a involucrarme en la discusión contemporánea de la filosofía de la ciencia social. Una primera lección que me deja dicho ejercicio, la cual ejemplifico con ciertas puntualizaciones respecto al (que considero) deficiente trato que dicha filosofía recibe en y por parte de mi academia, es la necesidad de hacer explícito (de pensar un poco en) el trasfondo filosófico que subyace toda teorización social. Ya que creo que muchos de los problemas originalmente achacados a esta última pueden ser atajados, de forma satisfactoria, desde su contraparte filosófica.

Starting with an account of some of the main elements that are constitutive of the contemporary approach to the phenomena of religion, whereby special attention shall be given to the phenomenological approaches to the phenomenon of Religion as such, this paper shall, in the following moment, proceed with a reflexive analysis of some of the crucial analytic aspects of religion on the basis of a philosophical study of one of its most universal manifestations, i.e., the phenomenon of Prayer. We shall analyze different forms of prayer, which have a span that goes from its manifestation in the Prayer of Silence to its manifestation in the Cultic expression of Prayer. Following this analysis, attention will especially be given to the need for an identification of some of the dangers and menacesattached to an ideological or fundamentalist approach to Religion. Finally, what we intend to show is the creative power of the tension that is given between what Jean-Luc Marion calls the Idolatric and the Iconic, since in this very tension we can explore the true dimension of what Religion is both in its essence and in its manifestations.

The article focuses on the key aspects (which are the principles of holism and evolution) of the integral approach of the modern American philosopher, Ken Wilber. The theory of Ken Wilber is analyzed in the framework of the new paradigm of science, which is being developed during the last decade of the twentieth and the beginning of the twenty-first century. The advantages of the works of Ken Wilber are the following: firstly, the scientist was able to systematize and integrate dozens of other theoretical approaches, most of which are relatively new and not well-known. Secondly, Ken Wilber’s theory is important for the reason that it can serve as a methodological and “practical” method, which can be applied to the study of any phenomenon, taking into consideration as many aspects of reality as possible, as well as those theoretical approaches, which are otherwise unrelated to each other. It makes possible to avoid reductionism and fragmentation of knowledge in the study of (religion). The article shows the importance of Wilber’s theory for the area of religious studies. I have built existing theories that study religion into a methodological “map”, which provides a basis for such kind of approach to religion that can integrate positivistic, phenomenological, functionalist, psychological and other theories in the area of religious studies. Such theories, taken separately, study only one aspect of religion, representing a fragmentary knowledge of this phenomenon, and this aspect is compensated by an integral approach. In addition, it can be hypothesizedthat antagonisms between religious bodies and religious persons can be interpreted and explained as a conflict between different structures of consciousness, (studied by K. Wilber in his works as well).

Doubtless interest for a modern science represents the answer to a question on the reasons of passion among intellectuals in Russia and Germany for overconfessional currents like theosophy and antroposophy. The author distinguishes the spiritual crisis like the most important prerequisite of passion for works of E. Blavatskaja and R. Shtajner. E. V. Kriageva-Kartseva compares the activity of different theosophical and antroposophical societies in two countries at the beginning of the ХХ century and draws some conclusions. For example, the author regards the orthodoxy as the important factor, which has kept the expansion ofsyncretic religions to Russia.

The report is dedicated to modern understanding of the correlation between science and religion that is based on the analysis of certain ideas formulated by Newton, Berkeley and Mach. Newton proceeded from the existence of infinite (absolute) Space that he interpreted as the Sensory of the intelligent omnipresent Being (God) who sees things themselves intimately, and throughly perceives and comprehends them. Human being also has his little “Sensoriums” perceiving the images of things, the Order and the Beauty of their arrangement. Mach emphasized that since Newton’s period space and time have become “immaterial substances that form the most important basis of our sensual world outlook”. Apparently, this “immateriality of substances” manifests itself in the way Machinterprets our perceptions, conceptions, will, feelings, i.e. all inner and outer world, which he understands as small number of homogeneous elements called sensations (Empfindungen). These sensations are compared in the report to what Berkeley called ideas while he denied the existence of the real absolute noncreated space that is part, or attribute, of God. If we accept the idea that beside space and time inseparable from matter as it is scientifically comprehended, there exist absolute space and time as Newton interpreted them, then these space and time must exist outside our universe or parallel to it. This brings us to the panentheistic model (Eduard I. Sorkin, ХХIst World Congress of philosophy, Abstracts 2003, pp. 374‐375). According to Mach the law of causality is separated from space and time while the laws of nature are just limitations that our experience dictates to our expectations. The report shows that if the Mach’s concept had been supplemented by the “idealistic” views of Newton and Berkeley, it would have been more convincing – something contrary to fideism.

Compared with the related western studies, Russian ecological philosophy has paid more attention to Eschatology and represented a unique path of thinking, that is, an intense rational conception and a religious consciousness. In the era of globalization, Russian ecological Eschatology, as an active response of Russian ideology to the world ecosystem crisis, contains a strong eschatological emotion and a spirit of salvation. It mainly deals with the sin and punishment between the nature and human being as well as the endeavor of atoning humanity. The first part of the essay traces back the origin and evolution of eschatology and ecology in the two systems of Russian philosophy—humanism and cosmism, with a trimming of the original relationship between the ecological eschatology and the traditional eschatology. The second part explores the way of salvation for the human being in crisis directed by Russian ecological philosophy, which is nourished by the profound spiritual tradition. For the human being, the way of civilization lies in a rebuild of rationality by faith. The goal of faith is to achieve a self-completeness in morality by a heart-open through God. In this way, the destiny of the world may be changed. This is the only hope of the human being and, therefore, a new chapter of salvation for our times.

An atheist argument usually goes like this. If God exists and is omnipotent as believed, He could have created any possible world as he pleased. The existence of moral evil, though, makes problematic the existence of God, or His omnipotence at least. Plantinga's answer to an atheist is: it is not that God, as omnipotent, could have created any possible world as he pleased, but rather it is that God, even though omnipotent, could not have created the world as he pleased. In chapter 2, I formulate an atheist's view of moral evil which resulted from the free will of human beings, and examine Plantinga's view that distinguishes between an act of creation, and an act of actualization of state of affairs. He asserts that creation of earth, heaven, or Socrates can be attributed to God, but the actualization of necessary states of affairs, and among contingent states of affairs, false possible states of affairs cannot be attributed to God. In chapter 3, I explain Plantinga's view that God cannot be held responsible for actualizing state of affairs implemented by free choice, and that human action with free will can only be attributed to human being, not to God. In chaper 4, I will criticize Plantinga's view not to be a genuine compatibilism between the existence of God and moral evil, and sketch the compatibilism between providential determinism and moral evil.