Philosophical discourse and theological intuition (Dionysius the Areopagite and Maximus the Confessor)

Since I am a believer and a member of the Orthodox Church, my fundamental orientation is theological, that is, theocentric. Moreover, it is formed by that fundamental, in my opinion, approach to the nature of the real, which found expression in the works of two outstanding Greek theologians of the 6th and 7th centuries - Dionysius the Areopagite and Maximus the Confessor. According to Maximus, the created world is divided into two spheres: the sphere of what is perceived by the senses and the sphere of what is not perceived by the senses. But this does not mean that the sphere of what is not perceived by the senses is incomprehensible. It is not accessible to the senses, but is accessible to “nous” (νοῦς) – “mind”, what can be called the “spiritual mind” of a person. The “mind”, being properly prepared and “purified”, is able to comprehend the truth of creation. In other words, if, for example, scientific research is limited to the study of the perceived, that is, sensory world, then the truths about this same world that we discover belong to the sphere of the invisible, not perceived by the senses. The connection of these two spheres is an incomprehensible mystery for Maxim and is carried out by God. There is, for example, no bridge by which we can connect the red color that we perceive and the light wave that we know ultimately determines our perception. According to Maximus, everything that exists in the sensible world has an intelligible aspect, which he calls logos. It is logos that is the reason for the existence of things, and it can be called the “deep structure” of the perceived world. To know something, if this knowledge is not limited to bare sensory perception, is to know the corresponding logos. Essentially, to know only our perception is to know nothing at all in the real sense. Perception does not convey knowledge. Knowledge communicates only the activity of the “mind,” nous. The human being, as a creature with a perceptual aspect, also has a deep structure belonging to the intelligible world. The peculiarity of this world is that it can both perceive and be perceived; just as a feature of the sphere of feelings is both perception and perceptibility. And it is the mind - nous, which does not belong to the sphere of the sensory perceived, that is capable of grasping and comprehending the “deep structure” of created beings. If the logos of created beings can be grasped by the "mind" (nous), what then is the status of speech, the human logos (words) that we use to verbally communicate with each other? Just as the God-created logos of things is a bridge between the perceived creation and its Creator, so the human logos is a bridge between what is perceived (either by the senses or the mind - nous) and the human being. He also exists in two spheres, the sensory and the intelligible, and by agreement can be a link between the inner worlds of two thinking creatures through sound. However, all human languages ​​have a secondary, derivative nature and are possible thanks, on the one hand, to the logos of things, and on the other, to our ability to connect the understanding of the logos of a thing with any word. The purpose of any discourse is to create a κοινὸς λόγος, a common logos, a common word or speech, which makes possible communication and the emergence of a common inner world. For Maximus the Confessor, the logoi of creation are coordinated and integrated by the divine Logos - the Word of God, the second Person of the Trinity. One should not, however, think that the totality of created logoi exhausts the Logos of God. They only point to the Word of God, but nothing more. Now let's turn to Dionysius, who wrote about a hundred years earlier - at the turn of the 5th and 6th centuries. For Dionysius, the world is also divided into two spheres, and the understanding of the sensory world for both theologians is essentially the same. However, the invisible world of Dionysius is very complex. It is a hierarchical, multi-level world in which between creation and God there are nine orders, or ranks, which he calls “angels.” The Greek word "angel" means messenger, and these "angels" are a kind of messenger between God and His creation. They are something “third” between the uncreated and the created as a “middle term,” which corresponds to the created logoi of Maximus. The angelic ranks form a “hierarchy” because each of them is capable of comprehending that which is lower than it, but cannot be fully comprehended by the lower one. The lower ones are comprehended by the higher ones, who at the same time communicate to the lower ones part of those aspects of being that they received from a higher rank. Every creation is connected to its Creator through the hierarchy of angelic forces, be it a stone, a plant, a bird or a human being. The function of angelic forces is to ensure the unity and harmony of creation. And just like Maximus, true knowledge of creation - that is, non-sensory knowledge - presupposes knowledge of the angelic forms and their actions. However, Maximus added another aspect to Dionysius's understanding of the deep structure of creation, which Dionysius ignored. Maxim introduced movement, and therefore time, into the concept of the Areopagite. For Maximus, the logos of any created thing includes its acquisition of being (γένεσις), its development in time (κίνησις) and its final state (στάσις) in God. In other words, Maxim “opened” Dionysius’s scheme – into the space of evolution and history. All direct knowledge of logoi or messenger angels is intuitive and personal. In order for this knowledge to be shared, discussed and refined, it must be spoken about in a language that uses all the powers of symbolization and signification possible for language. This is the function of what is called διάνοια, that is, discursive reason. From God we have the ability - in language - to connect the invisible and insensible logoi of creation with the sounds we perceive and, ultimately, with writing, written text. How this is possible remains a mystery, but it is a fact. Here I would like to draw attention to the striking parallel between the structure of the world in Dionysius and one of the greatest mathematical discoveries of the past century. I mean Gödel's theorem, according to which in every mathematical system there are true statements that can be formulated within that system, but which cannot be proven true within that system. In other words, all thought systems are doomed to be incomplete. In order to fully understand any verbal or rational system, it is necessary to use another system, a higher level. Thus, we can say that Dionysius seemed to intuitively have this truth in mind when he said that each of the angelic orders is able to understand the order located below, but cannot comprehend that which is located above. In this regard, it is worth paying attention to the thoughts of the British physicist David Bohm, who was involved in the reformulation of quantum mechanics. Essentially he speaks of a multi-level world of form where, at a level deeper than the quantum, information can travel faster than the speed of light, and where the usual obstacles associated with the three-dimensional, temporal world disappear. I give this example to point out that even in the pre-scientific era, thinkers intuitively had in mind the same reality that we deal with today. Why did I turn to Dionysius the Areopagite? Because he borrowed his entire system from outside the Church. Dionysius pretended to be a Christian author of the 1st century, a disciple of the Apostle Paul and a certain Hierotheus. But in fact, the worldview that he proposed was developed over the centuries outside the Christian Church by Platonic and Neoplatonic philosophers, completely “secular” in their approach. Philosophers who did not believe in any transcendental God, the Creator of this world, or that the end of this world would ever come. They certainly did not believe that the eternal God could incarnate and become the personality of a specific person. But Dionysius discovered in the thoughts of these philosophers something that helped him understand his Christian faith. And he added to this developed system what for him was the revelation of God. Commentators on Dionysius – John of Scythopolis and Maximus the Confessor, in turn, made certain adjustments to Dionysius’ system, interpreting it so that it was completely “Orthodox”. And eventually Dionysius and his “angelic” Neoplatonic hierarchy were included in the theological systems of both the Western and Eastern Churches. It is interesting that this process - when "secular" philosophical positions are modified by a Christian theologian - finds its justification in Dionysius and Maximus themselves. The created world, both in its invisible, insensible aspect, and in its sensory aspect, is a given. As created beings, we are faced, at least indirectly, with all its levels, with the entire hierarchy - from inanimate matter to the source of all being - God. Scientific and philosophical work aims to identify and express our intuitions about the deep structure of reality in verbal form, allowing us to separate them. This work is blessed by God, who has given us this ability, most likely because in the process of doing this work we learn something about Himself. The only difference between scientific and philosophical work, on the one hand, and the work of a theologian, on the other, is that the theologian works within a tradition that is based on Revelation. This Revelation comes from above, it cannot be reached from below. However, from the point of view of Dionysius and Maximus, as well as the Eastern tradition as a whole, every scientific and philosophical achievement must approach this Revelation. This does not mean, however, that the theological tradition – and particular theologians – can escape the critical attitude of science or philosophy. But they should do it by saying, "You're not quite there yet" or "Yes, but there's still something else to say." And this “something else” is not something that science or philosophy can come to, but something that is transmitted through the living tradition of the Church, through the intuitive understanding of God and creation, revealed in Christ to those who are involved in this living tradition. As a result, we have the following picture. The Church has an understanding that can only be expressed in words with great difficulty. In turn, science and philosophy develop in their own way. But over time, philosophy and science will approach the understanding given in Revelation. However, they will not be able to achieve it, since discursive reason, διάνοια, subject to the limitations of which Gödel's theorem speaks, will never be able to express in words the completeness of the real. The deep structure of the world is not unified in itself, since its unity goes back to the Logos of God. And the Logos of God exceeds the capabilities of our knowledge. Speaking in the language of the Eastern Church, we can cognize and participate in Divine energies, but we can never cognize the Divine essence. The most we can do is to cognize the insensible logoi of created things in their connection with the Logos of God. And in this knowledge we rely on the “mind”, nous, which each of us possesses; it is nonverbal cognition that becomes communicable through human logos, that is, speech. The development over time of philosophy and science is dialectical and dialogical, as is the development of culture as a whole. It requires language and belongs to the realm of discursive thinking, διάνοια. In this respect, it is different from the content of the theological tradition, which is characterized by an intuitive “givenness”, associated with Revelation, and does not allow development. The deepest content of the theological tradition is given only through prayer, through communication with God in Christ and in the Holy Spirit. According to Evagrius of Pontus, “if you are a theologian, then you truly pray, and if you truly pray, you are a theologian.” In its dialectical and historical aspect, theology also belongs to the field of διάνοια. However, in formulating the dogmas of faith, as in the doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation, which most accurately express the truth of God, it goes beyond the limits of ordinary rationality. This means that the Christian community constantly uses "secular" thought to express its truth. The Fathers of the Church always resorted to the help of thinkers belonging to their contemporary culture in order to find words for the creation of a “common logos”. And since the theological tradition contains the “one thing it needs” in the form of direct knowledge of God in Christ, it can use whatever linguistic and philosophical means it needs to convey its truths. There is no need to look far for examples. When the theology of the "death of God" became popular in the West, Orthodox theologians noticed that the God that these new theologians said was dead was indeed dead, but that the Living God of true theology could not die. After Heidegger offered his critique of the Western philosophical tradition, some Orthodox theologians used phenomenology to defend Orthodox theology against its Western critics. And when “liberation theology” became popular, Olivier Clément responded to this and said something like this: “Yes, theology speaks specifically about liberation; but theology is about liberation in a much deeper, radical sense, and not just in the sense that the discussants have in mind.” And today, when “postmodernists” attack the heirs of the Enlightenment from all sides, there are Orthodox theologians who use their arguments in support of Orthodox theology. Among the “allies” of Orthodox theology one can name Mikhail Bakhtin and Emmanuel Levinas. I even met with a positive assessment, from an Orthodox point of view, of Jacques Lacan. But isn't that what Father Pavel Florensky did with Bertrand Russell in The Pillar and Grounder of Truth, or the Slavophiles who used Hegel and Schelling to express their own intuitions in a modern context? A theology based on prayer will use philosophical and scientific discourse for its own purposes, since it has no discourse of its own. But at the same time, it will not consider itself “attached” to any of them and will criticize human thinking, relying as a basis on the direct intuition of God in Christ, as did the first Christians and then their followers.