v. 1. Ot marksizma k idealizmu -- v. 2. Statʹy i raboty raznykh let 1902-1942.

t. 1. Svet nevecherniĭ : sozert︠s︡anii︠a︡ i umozrenii︠a︡ -- t. 2. Filosofii︠a︡ imeni ikona i ikonopochitanie.

Tri filosofskikh "opravdanii︠a︡" (teodit︠s︡ei︠a︡, antropodit︠s︡ei︠a︡, kosmodit︠s︡ei︠a︡ Serebri︠a︡nogo veka) -- Russkai︠a︡ sofiologii︠a︡ i kabbala -- S. Bulgakov : nauka sofiologii︠a︡ (ili konet︠s︡ religii) -- Tretiĭ Zavet o. Sergii︠a︡ Bulgakova -- Tretʹezavetnai︠a︡ misterii︠a︡ ("malai︠a︡" trilogii︠a︡ Bulgakova).

Sergius Bulgakov (1871–1944) was one of the centrally important Russian Orthodox theologians of the past century. His theological system (Sophiology) is among the most detailed and comprehensive attempts at a novel, Orthodox systematic theology developed in engagement with western philosophical and theological movements. His first major work of theology, Unfading Light (1917), incorporates an early Orthodox critique of the radical Christian transhumanism propounded by Nikolai Fedorovich Fedorov (1829–1903). Fedorov had developed an account of humanity's prospects for a technologically facilitated (...) eschatology. The goals of this article are: (1) to provide a concise summary Fedorov's ideas on technologized resurrection; (2) to provide an overview of Bulgakov's sympathetic critique of Fedorov's model; and (3) to discuss the ongoing relevance of that critique vis‐à‐vis current and future Christian dialogue with the transhumanist movement. (shrink)

What's Next? Michael Crichtons und Mikhail Bulgakovs Kritik der Fetischisierung in den Lebenswissenschaften. Dieser Beitrag wurde angeregt durch den Thriller Next (2006) von Michael Crichton. Im Gegensatz zu dessen State of Fear (2004), wo die Behandlung eines aktuellen wissenschaftspolitischen Problems – des Klimawandels – mit einer harschen Kritik am Umgang politischer Aktivisten mit wissenschaftlichen Ergebnissen einhergeht, setzt Next Hoffnungen und Ängste ins Zentrum, die im Zusammenhang mit dem ‚Human Genome Project‘ verhandelt wurden. Crichton stellt hier wissenschaftlich‐ökonomische Verflechtungen dar, vor denen (...) er schon in seinen Romanen zu Jurassic Park (1990) warnte. Hier wird auf die Gefahr der Fetischisierung im Zusammenhang mit utopisch untermalten wissenschaftlich‐technischen Großprojekten und der Phantasie ‚Leben zu machen‘ hingewiesen, und es werden entsprechende Motive und Narrative der,longue‐durée‘ aufgegriffen, z.B. künstliche Menschen, menschliche Hybris und das Außer‐Kontrolle‐Geraten wissenschaftlich‐technischer Großprojekte. Unter der Fragestellung, wie kritische Wissenschaftsreflexion im Medium von Literatur erfolgen kann und was der spezifische Beitrag aus der Wissenschaftsgeschichte wäre, behandelt dieser Essay neben Werken von Michael Crichton (vor allem Next und Lost World, 1997) auch die satirischen Novellen Die verhängnisvollen Eier (1924/1925) und Hundeherz (1926/1968) von Mikhail Bulgakov, da bereits dort die (mögliche) künstliche Hervorbringung von Lebewesen unter der Bedingung eines (versuchten) direkten Zugriffs auf deren Reproduktionsmechanismen fokussiert wurde. Wissenschaftskritik als Gesellschaftskritik zeigt sich hier als Reflexion auf die Grenzen zwischen Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft und auf die Verantwortung der entlang dieser Grenzen agierenden Menschen, aber auch auf strukturelle Gewalt und deren Auswirkungen auf die Verhältnisse zwischen Menschen und Naturdingen sowie unter Menschen.Summary: What's Next? Michael Crichton's and Mikhail Bulgakov's Criticism of Fetishism in the Life Sciences. This paper was first inspired by Michael Crichton's last thriller, Next (2006), which staged hopes and fears triggered by the completion of the Human Genome Project and by the perfection of Polymerase chain reaction techniques, enabling the replication of DNA on a large scale. These developments nourished fantasies about the artificial (re)construction of living beings from DNA. Crichton had already warned of the fetishization of artificially produced living beings in Jurassic Park and in the novels on which the film was based inventing a futuristic scenario where this was happening on a large scale. Here, the topics of hubris and hybrids were center stage. In Next, the fetishization of life is an effect of the growing encroachment of economic actors upon the life sciences. This paper compares Crichton's criticism of techno‐scientific fetishism with Mikhail Bulgakov's critical account of human tinkering with the reproductive organs of humans and non‐humans in his two satirical novels The Fateful Eggs and Dog's Heart. The works of both authors link criticism of science with criticism of society. They focus the borders between science and society and analyze the responsibilities of humans who are acting along those borders. The thrillers and satirical novels illustrate the – often violent – power relations between humans and nature and also among humans. Comparing two authors who wrote nearly a century apart from each other and focussing different social systems will help compare longue‐durée and more specific forms of techno‐scientific fetishism. (shrink)

An economic man, i.e., the leading role in economic ethics, has been deeply investigated in our study considering a human being’s economic behavior and the hypotheses for an economic man in traditional economics based on M. Weber’s and S. N. Bulgakov’s Christian economic man. Among various channels to study business ethics and economic ethics, we chose the definition of an economic man given by Weber and Bulgakov to review a hypothesis about a rational economic man in economics and (...) discussed L. von Mises’s and A. Sen’s contentions for an economic man’s substantive freedom and innermost being. The issue deserved to be further investigated by scholars who concern business ethics and economic ethics consists in reconciling egotism and altruism commonly embedded in an economic man’s heart and boosting more altruistic economic men. (shrink)

Contemporary scholarship interprets Sergej Bulgakov’s sophiology as an engagement of Orthodox theology with the modern world and as being on its way to becoming a political theology. In this paper I undertake a re-evaluation of the kind of engagement sophiology was and was intended to be, and of the kind of world it was destined for. It will be argued that sophiology was not so much a political-theological engagement with the world concentrating on the relation of religion and politics (...) or state and church, but rather an economic-theological engagement in the tradition of oikonomia theology that tried to understand the world in its relation to and as part of divine oikonomia. Furthermore, the world sophiology promotes engagement with is not only the real contemporary world, or the sociological ideal type of modernity, but primarily the world as such, this secular and human world over and against the divine and transcendent world. (shrink)

The text examines Sergej Nikolajeviè Bulgakov's description of the philosopheme as thoroughly "immanent" and the corollary that such immanence necessarily excludes the problematic of the "creation of the world." Because of this resolute immanence and the notion that the creation of the world in the form of creatio ex nihilo requires a non-immanent or non-ontological thought and concept, the problematic for Bulgakov is approached only by a theologeme. Appropriating this argument as material for a cursory philosopheme, the text (...) attempts to transform Bulgakov's theologeme into a philosopheme through an elision of God and dogma that overdetermines the theologeme. This philosopheme would be a thoroughly non-ontological philosopheme, one that allows for the treatment of the problematic of "creation" or singular ontogenesis, yet with the corollary that this philosopheme must rely on an "ontological zero" Such a philosopheme qua ontologically empty formula nevertheless remains ontologically significant insofar as it is to evince the limit of ontology, in the ontological zero's non-relationality to ontology.O texto examina a descrição do filosofema de Sergej Nikolajeviè Bulgakov como completamente "imanente" [a saber, a imanência do homem qua ser, de modo que a ontologia em Bulgakov torna-se um análogo conceitual da imanência] e o corolário de que tal imanência necessariamente exclui a problemática da "criação do mundo". Em razão dessa imanência resoluta e da noção de que a criação do mundo na forma de creatio ex nihilo requer um pensamento e um conceito não-imanentes ou não-ontológicos, a problemática da "criação do mundo" para Bulgakov é abordada somente por um teologema. Apropriando-se desse argumento como material para um filosofema fugaz, o texto procura transformar o teologema de Bulgakov em filofosema, por meio de uma elisão de Deus e do dogma que sobredetermina o teologema. Esse filosofema [que nasce no interior da própria obra de Bulgakov, em sua hesitação com respeito à sobredeterminação da imanência e ao compromisso com o problema da criação] seria um filosofema completamente não-ontológico, que permite o tratamento da problemática da "criação" ou ontogênese singular, ainda que com o corolário de que ele tem de depender de um "zero ontológico". Um tal filosofema qua fórmula ontologicamente vazia permanece não obstante ontologicamente significativo, à medida que ele evidencia o limite da ontologia, na não-relacionalidade do zero ontológico com a ontologia. (shrink)

In this paper I present Bulgakov’s conception of the sophiology of death considered, first, as a science of God’s Wisdom and, second, as the content of Bulgakov’s work entitled “Sophiology of Death.”.

In this paper I present Bulgakov’s conception of the sophiology of death considered, first, as a science of God’s Wisdom and, second, as the content of Bulgakov’s work entitled “Sophiology of Death.”.

Contemporary scholarship interprets Sergej Bulgakov's sophiology as an engagement of Orthodox theology with the modern world and as being on its way to becoming a political theology. In this paper I undertake a re-evaluation of the kind of engagement sophiology was and was intended to be, and of the kind of world it was destined for. It will be argued that sophiology was not so much a political-theological engagement with the world concentrating on the relation of religion and politics (...) or state and church, but rather an economic-theological engagement in the tradition of oikonomia theology that tried to understand the world in its relation to and as part of divine oikonomia. Furthermore, the world sophiology promotes engagement with is not only the real contemporary world, or the sociological ideal type of modernity, but primarily the world as such, this secular and human world over and against the divine and transcendent world. (shrink)

Mikhail Bulgakov's novel The Master and Margarita was written between 1929 and 1940. Although delayed for a quarter of a century, it quickly found a stable place in our life as soon as it was published [for the first publication of the novel see: Moskva, 1966, no. 11; 1967, no. 1]. It is usually classified as a satirical philosophical novel. The satirical element puts it in the same family as such well-known works of the end of the '20s as (...) the novels of I. Il'f and E. Petrov, Twelve Chairs [Dvenadtsat' stul'ev] and The Golden Calf [Zolotoi telenok], but its emphatically philosophical orientation makes it all but a unique phenomenon in the history of Soviet literature. The novel's philosophical aspects have already been examined in a number of essays. Thus, for example, N. P. Utekhin analyzes the reflection of certain general philosophical categories in the novel. G. Chernikova and I. L. Galinskaia have endeavored to determine the concrete literary sources of the novel's philosophy [Chernikova 1971, pp. 213-219; Galinskaia 1986]. (shrink)

Historical, cultural and professional factors have contributed to stigma and secrecy regarding addiction in the medical profession and there are calls to improve education in this area. This paper argues that physician-penned literature plays an important role in raising awareness of substance misuse in the medical profession. Bulgakov’s short story Morphine documents the decline of Dr Polyakov and illustrates a number of salient professional issues such as self-medication, abuse of authority and risks to patients. Physician-penned literature such as Morphine (...) is of value in medical education as it offers a route into sensitive topics and an authoritative and insider perspective that is attractive to students and physicians alike. (shrink)

Building on A.V. Smirnov’s distinction between substantive and process logic, the author evaluates the position of S.N. Bulgakov laid out in “The Tragedy of Philosophy”. The article shows that the judgment “I am A”, which Bulgakov considers the fundamental principle of thought and the basis for defining the Self as a hypostasis, cannot be a form of defining the Self as an individual. Individuality is not defined within the framework of substantial logic (“I am A”), but defines itself (...) within the framework of process logic (“I affirm A”). The author considers three forms of affirmation of the Self: affirmation as performativity, affirmation as negation, and affirmation as productive action. Conclusion: the being of the Self, which requires the active action of the Self itself, is the ontological basis for the existence of process logic. (shrink)

Father Sergei Bulgakov (1871–1944), directly influenced by Vladimir Solovyov and especially by Father Pavel Florensky, developed his sophiological concept which takes a central place in his doctrine of Trinity and God's economy. The main failure of the Russian sophiology is that the question of God's Wisdom is not Christologically founded in the spirit of the New Testament and patristic teaching. Bulgakov neglects the theology of God's uncreated energies. He thinks that it does not sufficiently explain the creation of (...) the world as well as the relationship between God and the world. According to him, the creation of the world and its unity with God can be explained only through a mediator who acts as an “ontological bridge” between the Creator and the creation. Bulgakov, using the ontological mediation paradigms that are characteristic for certain ancient philosophical systems, especially Neo-Platonism, develops his doctrine of Sophia. She is immanent to both the nature of God and the creation. This attitude leads Bulgakov to the position of pantheism. In order to avoid this danger, he modifies his teaching introducing two models of Sophia: “Divine Sophia” and “Created Sophia”. Unlike the patristic theology, Bulgakov’s sophiological essentialism does not tend the antinomy of apophatic-kataphatic theology, and thereby he puts into question the ontological difference between the Creator and the creation. It is a failed attempt to interpret the dogma of the creation of the world ex nihilo, through categories and concepts that are alien to the church tradition. (shrink)

In this article I engage with Sergei Bulgakov's “sophiological” critique of Aquinas's account of creatio ex nihilo and the divine ideas. Bulgakov claims that Aquinas's account is insufficiently Trinitarian, too influenced by pagan philosophy, and as such separates the divine will and intellect in such a way as to introduce arbitrariness and instrumentality into the relationship between the divine ideas and creation. I argue that it is inaccurate to characterise Aquinas's account of creation and the divine ideas as (...) pagan or non‐Trinitarian; instead, following Augustine, Aquinas understands the divine ideas as essential to a thoroughly Trinitarian understanding of creation which is necessary to avoid reducing creation to impersonal necessary emanation on the one hand, or an arbitrary act of will on the other. However, I concede that, at times, Aquinas's account of the ideas of things which are never created may have opened the door to later more voluntarist and possibilist views. (shrink)

The conception of the neo-patristic, despite its notional meaning being self-evident, continues to confound scholars in its specific detail. In this regard, a question of interest concerns the relationship between Fr. Sergius Bulgakov and neo-patristics. Conventional wisdom posits that Bulgakov ascribed to the “Russian school” with a philosophically-oriented approach to theology, whose interest in patristics was limited. Reading Bulgakov’s writings, however, reveals greater engagement with patristics. The present paper considers Bulgakov’s engagement with the patristic tradition in (...) the émigré journal Put’ in three areas—early ecclesiological writings, dogmatic theology, ecclesiology and ecumenism—and details the nature of his patristic engagement across part of his formative thinking. This has a bearing on his sophiology. It is proposed that Bulgakov actively engaged with the patristic tradition, although his work had a high degree of originality. This afforded Bulgakov a unique “neo-patristic” lens, as compared with theologians of the Russian diaspora in a broader sense. (shrink)

One of the most contentious events of Russian religious thought of the twentieth century was the “Sophia Affair”, which befell Bulgakov in 1935. This article compares and contrasts two responses by Nikolai Berdyaev and Sergius Bulgakov and what they say about freedom of thought in Russian theology, what that means in a socio-cultural context and the impact that had on the development of Russian theology. This is then compared with an article by Bulgakov written chronologically close to (...) the events in question about the theology of authority in the Church. A parallel is drawn, with corresponding insights about the problems of authority in the Russian Church from a theological perspective, and how this affected Bulgakov’s theology in the 1930s and over the course of his life. (shrink)

The paper argues that Sergej Bulgakov's sophiology was an attempt, via antinomism or the philosophy of antinomies, to overcome the rationalism, monism, and determinism (in a word, "pantheism") of Vladimir Solov'ëv's philosophy of the Absolute understood as an abstract Trinitarianism. After detailing Solov'ëv's thought on the Trinity and Bulgakov's criticisms of it, the study then describes Bulgakov's antinomism and its application to the doctrine of God. However, it is contended that Bulgakov's antinomism ultimately falls into the (...) same problems with pantheism found in Solov'ëv and so the last part of the paper tentatively proposes resources in his work, stated in the form of a suggested "fourth (Bulgakovian) antinomy" between ousia (divine Being as such) and Sophia (the revelation in God and the world of the divine Being), that might help to avoid a collapse of God and the world by making the divine Being proper utterly transcendent and unknowable. (shrink)

This paper focuses on what can be said to be the definitive features of the approach to theology by three Russian theologians: Fathers Sergii Bulgakov and Georges Florovsky as well as the Venerable Father Sophrony Sakharov. The article argues that the following common themes characterize the nature of their theology. First, personalism, in other words, the use of the term “person”, which they extensively applied to both God and human and angelic beings. The concept of person is indispensable in (...) the thought of all three theologians. The second common theme is how the authors understood the relationship between theology and experience and what is the significance of religious experience for philosophical theology. Finally, all three theologians agree that when theological truths are expressed in human language the problem of interpretation consequently arises. However, they answer in different ways the question of the number and status of possible theological languages. I conclude that it is St. Sophrony Sakharov who in his life and theology realized Florovsky’s famous call for a neo-patristic synthesis. (shrink)

Looking at John Milbank's recent turn to Fr. Sergej Bulgakov, this paper argues that the theological and philosophical commitments they share are overshadowed by a deeper difference concerning the role each assigns the church in secular culture. It turns to Milbank's roots in Augustine's philosophy of history, which he argues could have allowed the church to overtake the pagan (which founds the secular) were it not for his distinction between the "visible" church and its deferred (eschatological) perfection. Bulgakov (...) also criticizes Augustine's doctrine of the church, or so he thinks. He actually misreads Augustine, accusing the bishop of holding a doctrine of the church that Milbank would have liked him to have held. This suggests that Bulgakov would not agree with Milbank's view that the church should "enact" God's judgment in history by opposing itself to the secular. (shrink)

The text examines Sergej Nikolajeviè Bulgakov’s description of the philosopheme as thoroughly “immanent” (viz., the immanence of man qua being, such that ontology in Bulgakov becomes a conceptual analogue for immanence) and the corollary that such immanence necessarily excludes the problematic of the “creation of the world.” Because of this resolute immanence and the notion that the creation of the world in the form of creatio ex nihilo requires a non-immanent or nonontological thought and concept, the problematic for (...) Bulgakov is approached only by a theologeme. Appropriating this argument as material for a cursory philosopheme, the text attempts to transform Bulgakov’s theologeme into a philosopheme through an elision of God and dogma that overdetermines the theologeme. This philosopheme (nascent within Bulgakov’s work itself, in both his hesitation to the overdetermination of immanence and the commitment to the problem of creation) would be a thoroughly non-ontological philosopheme, one that allows for the treatment of the problematic of “creation” or singular ontogenesis, yet with the corollary that this philosopheme must rely on an “ontological zero” Such a philosopheme qua ontologically empty formula nevertheless remains ontologically significant insofar as it is to evince the limit of ontology, in the ontological zero’s nonrelationality to ontology. (shrink)

This article uses the personal diaries and memoirs of Archpriest Sergius (Sergei) Bulgakov to examine the circumstances of his expulsion from Bolshevik-occupied Crimea in late 1922. At the time, he was rector of the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral in Yalta. The expulsion of Fr. Sergius was part of a large-scale operation to expel the humanist intelligentsia, who did not fit within the ideological contours of the new government. We will examine the political aspects of the condemnations of Fr. Sergius’s doctrine (...) of Sophia, the theological development of which he began in exile. We will also examine aspects of Fr. Sergius’s attitude to monarchy and his belief in the “white tsar,” noting that Bulgakov’s position as an émigré could hardly be characterized as monarchical. Sophiology may be the political equivalent of ecclesiastical democracy, of faith in the ecclesiastical people and the Christian community, which was alien to the conservative monarchism of Orthodox believers abroad, centered in Serbia’s Sremski Karlovci. We will examine the circumstances of the church’s condemnation of Fr. Sergius, which took place against the context of canonical uncertainty, and we will touch upon some aspects of the contemporary reception of Sophiology in Russia in a political context (V. Bibikhin, O. Kirichenko). (shrink)

Among those included in the lists of being sent out in 1922 as part of the “Philosophers’ Steamboat,” there was Sergei Nikolayevich (Father Sergius) Bulgakov (1871–1944). Prior to his deportation, Bulgakov, after many years of struggle, reunited his philosophical and theological journeys. This is reflected in his dialogues and essays, in particular, in At the Feast of the Gods and At the Walls of Chersonesus, and Tragedy of Philosophy. In exile, Bulgakov continued to reflect on the tragedy (...) of a thinker facing a spiritual catastrophe, the tragedy of Russia torn by wars and revolutions, and his personal tragedies. Having regained his firm foundation and a way to overcome his uprootedness, Bulgakov makes an outstanding contribution to preserving Russian culture. This paper focuses on Bulgakov as a person, and his philosophy of religion is considered from the vantage point of how it reflects his personal struggles and humanistic worldview. The Philosophers’ Steamboat, an act of ideological repressions that followed the turbulent years of the Bolshevik Revolution and the Civil War, bears a lesson for today when Russia is at war again, and many prominent cultural figures sever ties with their country. Sergei Bulgakov’s fate and work set an example of living and creating through tragedy. (shrink)

The formative events -- Bulgakov's method and sources -- Russian Mariology and Bulgakov -- Theological anthropology and Mary -- Bulgakov's Mariology -- Critics and the reception of Bulgakov's Mariology -- Conclusion.

The main concern of both Berdjaev's and Bulgakov's philosophical strivings consists in developing a concept of the person as the foundation of human dignity and creativity within a Christian world view. Once attracted by Marxism with its emphasis on human dignity and social justice, they started to struggle against Marxism's atheist materialism because of its lack of a concept of person. However, the same concern will lead both thinkers down very different paths with different consequences. This paper argues that, (...) even though Berdjaev has become famous as a philosopher of the person and a herald of creative ethics, Bulgakov developed a more solid Christian justification of the same claims. Both systems are presented by means of comparing some crucial notions within their concepts of personality—potentiality, trinity and autonomy. (shrink)

The relationship between the Sophiology of Sergius Bulgakov and the neo-patristic movement within Orthodoxy is well-known. The neo-patristic synthesis won the day, and it is the dominant theological tradition within Orthodoxy. It is time for a serious reappraisal of Bulgakov’s theology by the Orthodox and non-Orthodox Christian theologians because Christian theology is faced with a looming bioethical issue, cybernetic enhancement technology. This technology raises a cybernetic-ethical version of the Sorites paradox that leads us to inquire at “what point (...) do technological enhancements take away or replace our humanity?” and “are cyborg enhancements ethical from an Orthodox Christian perspective?” Bulgakov’s Sophiology may provide important tools for assessing cyborg enhancements and answering these questions. This paper argues that Bulgakov’s Sophiology, particularly his theology of human creativity and belief that we can and should anticipate the spiritual bodies that we will have in the general resurrection, offers a framework for assessing the morality of technological alterations to our present bodily existence from an Orthodox perspective. (shrink)