Abstract
This study examines the notion of antinomy, or unavoidable contradiction, in the work of Pavel Florensky (1882–1937). Many Russian philosophers of the Silver Age shared a common conviction which is yet to receive sufficient attention in critical literature, either in Russia or abroad. This is namely a philosophical and theological dependence on unavoidable contradiction, paradox, or antinomy. The history of antinomy and its Russian reception is introduced here before a new framework for understanding Russian antinomism is defended. This is namely the anticipation of ‘vertical’ antinomies in ‘horizontal’ antinomies. Here, by ‘horizontal’ we suppose an unavoidable contradiction of reason or philosophical reflection, and by ‘vertical’ an unavoidable contradiction of revelation, faith, or a self-contradictory dogma. The study aims to demonstrate that Florensky fails to provide a satisfactory anticipation of vertical antinomies.
Highlights
The Russian Silver Age nurtured a philosophically charged “religious consciousness” amongst many of its protagonists, which would be triumphantly received by Nicholas Zernov as the “Russian Religious Renaissance” (Zernov 1963).1 This renaissance was not instantaneous and can, be traced back to the great philosopher, poet and mystic Vladimir Solov’ev (1853–1900),2 and even
The present study will undertake an analysis and critical evaluation of Pavel Florensky’s antinomism. This will demonstrate that Russian antinomism could only reach philosophical maturity in the anticipation of “horizontal” antinomies in “vertical” antinomies
By “horizontal” we suppose an unavoidable contradiction of reason or philosophical reflection, and by “vertical” an unavoidable contradiction of revelation or a self-contradictory dogma
Summary
Coates (2010). 2 Vladimir Solov’ev is still considered by many as the father of Russian philosophy, and is most renowned for his Lectures on Godmanhood. The subject must be saturated in an inexhaustible antinomian reality, where objective paradoxes are consistently apprehended as anticipating higher paradoxes, receiving their fullest meaning in these higher paradoxes This anticipation is no simple entailment or deduction of theology from philosophy, of faith from reason, but by virtue of its paradoxical nature is a metanoia or a living induction which is not logically deduced but rather “anticipated” through a demonstration that antinomies receive their truest expression in Christian dogma and religious life. Reading Florensky paraconsistently assumes that the above schema is universal and antinomies are ubiquitous This means antinomies are located both on the side of rationality (the horizontal) and higher reason (the vertical) and that, as Rojek writes, “Even in the state of enlightenment, the truths of religion remain inconsistent, only the attitude to them is changed” These antinomies are those of faith, antinomies isolated from horizontal justification, one either accepts such contradictions or rejects them
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call