CC BY
13science and technology. Only in this case will the existing social institutions acquire a rational and real form. Mankind has no other way to develop: or the beginning of real progress (new renaissance) in the name of man, where the main and only goal of collective social relations will be man, or an objective general catastrophe in which there will be neither winners nor losers "[16]. Therefore, it is obvious that freedom and responsibility are considered and analyzed as the dominants of social development of modern globalized society, while justified by the need to strengthen responsibility at all levels of the social system.
Thus, the problem of freedom in modern society can be solved only in conjunction with the solution of the problem of reification - the return of man from an alienated state. In turn, the problem of alienation is not only related to processesobjectificationoccurring within the framework of social practice, but also with the contradictions between spiritual freedom and modern social images of freedom that arise within the framework of liberal ideologies. At the same time in modern Ukraine as a result of sharp economic and political differentiation of the population intensified the process of alienation of individuals from personal safety and work, and at the public level as a result of increasing arbitrariness of officials.
References
1. Markov B. Man in the era of mass media. // Information society: collection M.: ACT. 2004.P. 482.
2. Marcuse G. One-dimensional man // American sociological thought: Texts. / Under. ed. V.I. Dobren-kova. M.: MSU, 1994. P. 129.
3. Fukuyama F. The end of history and the last man. M .: ACT, Ermak, 2004. - P.85.
4. 'Cantor K.M. Globalization? - So! But which one? // Questions of philosophy. - 2006. - № 1. - P. 31.
5. Markov B. Man in the era of mass media. // Information society: collection M .: ACT. 2004. S. 483.
6. Bauman 3. Globalization. Implications for man and society. Pp. 31-32.
7. Baudrillard J. Passwords. From fragment to fragment. Yekaterinburg: U-Faktoria, 2006. S. 32-33.
8. Barlow J.P. Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace.// Information Society: a collection of M .: ACT. 2004. S. 349.
9. Searle J. Rationality in action. - M .: Professional-Tradition, 2004. P. 75.
10. Bunge M. Holotechnodemocracy: an alternative to capitalism and socialism. // Questions of philosophy. 1994, № 6. S. 45.
11. Bunge M. Holotechnodemocracy: an alternative to capitalism and socialism. // Questions of philosophy. 1994, № 6.
12. Man before the challenge of modernity. Foreword by the editors // Alienation of man in the perspective of globalization of the world. Coll. articles. Issue I / Ed. Markova B.V., Solonina Y.M., Partzvaniya V.V. Petropolis Publishing House, St. Petersburg, 2001.S. 17.
13. Jonas G. The principle of responsibility. Experience of ethics for technological civilization. M .: Iris Press, 2004. p. 63.
14. Bokach I.A. Spirituality in the context of so-cio-philosophical analysis. M., 2000- 299 p.
15. Guardini R. The end of a new time. // In the book: The Phenomenon of Man: An Anthology of Man. In order. P.S. Gurevich. - M., 1993. S. 278.
16. Man before the challenge of modernity. Foreword by the editors // Alienation of man in the perspective of globalization. Coll. articles. Issue I / Ed. Mar-kova B.V., Solonina Y.M., Partzvaniya V.V. Petropolis Publishing House, St. Petersburg, 2001. P. 18.
ANALYSIS OF "SYMBOLIC" COGNITION IN BERDYAEV'S PHILOSOPHY
Shandra B.,
Candidate of Juridical Science, Associate Professor Associate Professor of the Department of Philosophy of SHEI "UzhhorodNational University" ORCID: 0000-0003-4104-2744 Svyshcho V., Candidate of Philosophy Science, Associate Professor of the Department of Philosophy of SHEI "UzhhorodNational University" ORCID: 0000-0002-6810-8267 Guy I.
applicant for the second (master's) level of higher education
2 years of study specialty 033 Philosophy SHEI« Uzhhorod National University»
ABSTRACT
The article considers the need for analysis "Symbolic" knowledge, in the philosophy of Berdyaev. The realization of this goal involves disclosure of the original connection of "gnosis" with the Spirit. Alsodetermining the contexts of the concepts used by him, because his philosophical evolution was associated with the use of various philosophical dictionaries. Contextual analysis is to trace the logic of Berdyaev's reasoning through a careful study
of his work and the influence of other philosophical systems and traditions on the formation of his understand-ing"Symbol and myth".
Keywords: gnosis, meaning, symbol, myth, Holy Spirit, spiritual experience, transcendence, immanence, cataphatic theology.
The analysis of "symbolic" cognition in Ber-dyaev's philosophy begins with the disclosure of the original connection of "gnosis" with the Spirit. After revealing the understanding of the symbol and myth, Ber-dyaev considers their connection with the "spiritual experience" of the "meaning" of the myth discovered by man. Speaking of "gnosis" Berdyaev does not pay due attention to this issue does not reveal the importance he attaches to it. The very use of the word "gnosis" in Ber-dyaev's philosophy is problematic, especially in Christianity, and to determine the meaning of "gnosis", it is necessary to refer to the characteristics of apophatic theology and mystical experience and the method of "objections" in negative theology in interpreting symbols.
«God is an inexplicable mystery»... «God cannot be called even being, because He is super-being. "But, Berdyaev argues, the path to the last Divine mystery lies through cognition, not through initial agnosticism, not through the prohibition of cognition.» [1]. Referring to the work of Nicholas of Cusa«About scientific ignorance»devoted to the possibility of knowledge of ignorance (knowledge that begins with the recognition of the boundaries of reason) and based on the tradition of apophatic theology and German mysticism, Ber-dyaev argues for two types of knowledge: knowledge through concepts and knowledge through symbol to claim that gnosis, knowledge of the Deity, is possible. Cognition through the concept of Berdyaev reveals through the critique of rationality in general and catastrophic theology. Speaking of knowledge through the symbol, Berdyaev speaks of apophatic theology and its role in the purification of the concepts that operate our thinking, turning to God. He also emphasizes the specific to the apophatic tradition connection of mystical experience with the knowledge of God. The question of the knowledge of the Deity is inextricably linked with the problem of God's relation to man and the world, the problem of the transcendence and immanence of God, - a problem that Berdyaev considered obsolete. Ber-dyaev sees the solution to this problem in the Holy Spirit (as he understands it), because the Holy Spirit is the principle of the unity of God and man, which attitude is expressed primarily as«spiritual experience». He justifies his attitude to the dispute over the transcendence and immanence of God in Christianity by the fact that«the nature of the Holy Spirit has not yet been dogmatically sufficiently revealed in the ecclesiastical consciousness» [2], Berdyaev emphasizes that in the patristic can be found only scattered grains of pneuma-tology. The Holy Spirit works, but his nature remains undiscovered. Indeed, until the XX century. in theology, relatively little attention was paid to the «Holy Spirit» [3]. Emphasizing the importance«to reveal» full of the nature of the Holy Spirit, Berdyaev writes: «undisclosed to the end of the nature of the Holy Spirit and there is undisclosed in Christianity spiritual life to the last, all-encompassing depth, there is a violation of the
spirit by the soul, there is an unconsciousness that every spiritual life, every true spiritual culture is rooted in God, the Holy Spirit. In the spirit, the Holy God becomes immanent to the world and to man. The Holy Spirit is closer to man than God the Father and even God the Son, although he is theologically known to them.» [2]. The obvious problem is this position. Ber-dyaev's position on this issue reveals his misunderstanding of the fullness of the relationship between father, son and Spirit, especially the interdependent relationship of pneumatology and Christology. It should be noted the general ambiguity of the concept«spirit»at Berdyaev. His reasoning about the Holy Spirit clearly shows a discrepancy with the New Testament understanding of the third person of the Trinity. But these considerations are certainly saturated with meanings derived from Platonism, Neoplatonism, German idealism and Christian mysticism, and borrowed with some modifications. For example, on the one hand, he argues that«The Spirit cannot simply be identified with the Holy Spirit, with the third Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity. Spirit is the sphere that connects the divine and the human, it embraces all human aspirations to God» [4]. On the other hand, he says:«the revelation of the last depth of spiritual life is the revelation of the Holy Spirit, and the hope of the future spiritual life that will transform the whole natural world is the hope of a stronger action of the Holy Spirit.» [5]. Further, Berdyaev often writes that «God is a Spirit» [4], but does not explain what exactly is meant. Is it about the connection of the Holy Spirit with God as in Christianity, or is his understanding broader, and does he mean the Spirit as an analogy, as the way of God in the world? May be«The spirit is God» in the sense of Beme's doctrine of Un-grund-e? It is also possible that this statement makes sense in a particular context, such as in response to a question about «being» God, because Berdyaev often uses terms to distinguish the meaning or essence of one in relation to another (for example, spirit and nature, object and subject, being and spirit). Due to the fact that Berdyaev does not give a satisfactory explanation«The question of Gnosis is also not resolved unambiguously, because Berdyaev connects gnosis with spirit and spiritual experience. Outgoing connection«gnosis» with the Spirit is revealed by Berdyaev in connection with «symbolic» knowledge. To come to a definition«sym-bol»in Berdyaev, one should begin with his critique of cataphatic theology, since the latter is associated with rationality. According to Berdyaev,«behind the religious idea of God is always hidden the abyss, the depth of the irrational and the superrational». Further:«the existence of this mysterious abyss, this depth of the irrational and determines the symbolism, which is the only way of knowledge of God and wisdom». So,«The deity is comprehensible only symbolically, only through a symbol one can penetrate into his mystery. The deity is incomprehensibly rational,inexpressible in a logical sense»[2]. It is obvious that Berdyaev understands
Boehme's doctrine of Ungrund-e as an expression of this abyss: «symbolism presupposes the abyss, Ungrund in the Divine life, the infinite, hidden behind all finite, esoteric life of the Deity, unyielding logical and legal design»[2]. Based on this, Berdyaev daims:«all rational conceptual categories about God and divine life, all categories of cataphatic theology do not express the last truth about the divine, they are all relative and addressed to the natural world and natural man, due to the limitations of this world». Berdyaev understands that the method of cataphatic theology is due to ontology, namely the ontology, which is interdependent with epistemology. It is important to note that Berdyaev does not speak of the absurdity of the ontological question (what is there?), But only denies the special direction of this question, namely the connection with epis-temology, where rationality is a means«the truth», which provides, above all, the difference between subject and object. For Berdyaev, the main problem is that cataphatic theology does not consider its concepts as symbols that go beyond phenomenal reality, but considers them as those that directly affect reality. The thinker believes that initially the concepts operated by cataphatic theology reached the depth of symbols, but gradually prevailed«conceptual»their use. In this regard, we can reveal the problem of Berdyaev's critique of cataphatic theology, because, arguing that it presupposes that its «concept» refer to something that exists rather than exists «characters» the latter deeper than reality, at the same time, suggests that they could, from the beginning, reach these symbols. Rationality itself in the method of cataphatic theology is not in question. Following this logic, it means that the role of rationality in its method is not problematic. Berdyaev, as it were, suggests that it is possible to replace the word concept with the word symbol at the end, which forgets about the way of knowing everyone. Berdyaev seems to suggest that it is possible to simply replace the word «concept» in a word «symbol»forgetting abouta specific way of knowing everyone. We are not talking about the need to deny rational knowledge and replace it with symbolic, because each of them has its own role in the knowledge of God. We are just trying to clarify the meaning that Berdyaev gives them. He writes: «where the sphere of rational cognition and the logical concept applicable only to the limited natural world comes to an end, there the sphere of symbolic cognition and the symbol applicable to the world of the divine begins.» [1]. Consider more closely the terms «symbol» and «concept» in their Berdyaev use. Following the logic of the connection between ontology and rationality, we find that«rational concept is understood in connection with«natural world». Berdyaev claims incompe-tence«nature» to accommodate «infinite in the finite»,, «divine in the natural». Discussing questions about «spirit as primordial reality», we talked about Berdyaev 's understanding of nature as «state» objectified «spirit»- a state associated with the decline of the world and man. In the context of the problem of rationality and nature, we do not go beyond this understanding. Interpretation of nature as declining implies nature as «world of necessity» and corresponds to the connection of nature with rationality. Emphasizing the inadequacy
of the attempt «rationalism» (It remains unclear how, philosophically speaking, Berdyaev understands this term because he uses terms such as «rationalization, rationalism and rationality», not paying attention to their differences), with the help of concepts to know the Deity, Berdyaev refers to Nicholas of Cusa and argues that «The deity is coincidentia oppositorium, a coincidence of opposites. The coincidence of opposites is antinomic to the mind, incompatible in concept». Hence Berdyaev concludes that«the concept is not developed for the reality that combines opposites. The concept is subject to the logical laws of identity and contradiction. But these logical laws can never express the nature of the God-head.» [2]. At the same time Berdyaev does not give a philosophical analysis«logical laws»concepts (this would not be a problem if he did not distort the philosophical constructions in which he borrows material for his reflections). Instead, it confines itself to stating that «where the competence of the concept ends, there comes into its own symbol» [2] Of course, rational knowledge plays a positive role on the path to knowledge of God, even if we understand this role in the sense of Dionysius the Areopagite as affirmation of symbols, approaching the stage of denial of symbols, concepts, silence (apophatism of the Trinity) (although symbol and concept understood in the Areopagite differently than in Berdyaev). However, as for Berdyaev, this attitude seems problematic. The problem is that, according to Berdyaev, objectification is an epistemolog-ical explanation of the Fall, which means the essential connection of rationality with the decline of the structures of consciousness. That is, rational cognition is understood by Berdyaev as declining. Thus, it is assumed that«concept», being at first decayed, being the product of decayed objectified and objectifying cognition, at the same time, can reach the point from which the symbol begins, in other words, it becomes the symbol. Establishing the connection of the symbol with infinity Ber-dyaev writes that«symbolism asserts both the knowa-bility and the unknowability of the Deity. The deity is an infinite and inexhaustible object of knowledge, eternally mysterious in its depth.». Therefore, - Berdyaev believes, - «the knowledge of the Deity is a dynamic process that has no end in any frozen, static categories of ontology. There are no limits set by agnosticism, a possible gnosis that goes further and further into the depths, the knowledge of the Deity is an infinite movement of the spirit» (here again understanding «spirit» not clear) in which, at the same time, «there is always a secret, it can never be exhausted. And this is expressed in the symbol» [2]. Giving only one example of this gnosis, Berdyaev refers to Boehme's doctrine of Un-grand-e, Pichto and infinite will:«the wisdom of God and the knowledge of God J. Boehme goes deeper into the mystery of the divine life, reveals a gnosis that knows no boundaries, but it is a symbolic, not a conceptual knowledge of God»[3]. Revealing his understanding of gnosis, Berdyaev shows its connection with the myth:«at the high levels of gnosis, philosophical and religious knowledge is freed from the power of concepts and turns to myth». Really,«the basis of mystical and symbolic knowledge is not a philosopher, but a mythologism,» says the philosopher, referring to the
connection between knowledge and myth. In a religious context, myths contain eternal truths about man and his existential dilemma. The Christian myth of the fall of Adam and Eve «mythically depicted in a specific story ... as an event that took place on our earth, in our time. Myth always depicts reality, but the reality of myth is symbolic»,, «but must spiritually comprehend the inner meaning of myth and symbol», which is given and revealed in the spiritual experience. Arguing that spiritual experience lies in discovering the meaning of myths, Berdyaev cites other examples of myths, such as the myth of the Atonement and the Redeemer, the mythologies of the Divine Trinity and the divine-human nature of Christ. The first example is somewhat different from the last two, because it indicates the need to discover its meaning, while the latter rather emphasize the impossibility of understanding them by «rational thinking». Based on German mystical thought, namely, Gottheit Eckhart and Ungrund Boehme, on the idea of the Divine bottomlessness, the Divine irrationality underlying the essence of existence, Berdyaev writes: «Deity is not comprehended in the categories of the mind, but in the revelations of the spiritual life» because this (divine abyss) is in itself overcoming «rational cognition». Then Berdyaev logically concludes that «the trinity of the Deity is absolutely inaccessible to rational think-ing.», and «about the divine-human nature of Christ, only a myth and a symbol are possible, not a concept. «Berdyaev believes that rational thinking tends, in the case of the Trinity, to monism or dualism, and in the case of Christology, to Monophysitism, to the recognition of only one nature.» At first glance, this implies that the spiritual realm is only that which is neither rational nor irrational. However, it is clear that Berdyaev goes deeper, because he attaches importance to the discovery of the meaning of myth and symbol and, in turn, the discovery of the spiritual. Paying attention to the possible discovery of the meaning of the myth and the acceptance of the super-rational, in which the spiritual experience of the Deity is acquired, Berdyaev writes that «thinking about the last mysteries of the divine life can only be intermittent ... the knowledge of the Deity involves going through a catastrophe of consciousness, through spiritual enlightenment, which changes the very nature of the mind» [4].Obviously, this is about faith. Although we must remember that faith is not just a decision once made, but is a constant effort, deed, task of man. In faith man must continually seek the mind of Christ in the unparalleled effort of consciousness and will. Next we read:«the enlightened, enlightened mind is already another mind, not the mind of this world and this century». Berdyaev characterizes this mind as a mind to which the Deity is immanent: «Deity imma-nently enlightened, enlightened, spiritually holistic mind», and Berdyaev identifies this mind with Christ, because only Christ's mind makes possible the immanent comprehension of the Deity». However, Ber-dyaev's understanding does not get a definition of the relationship between Christ and man, which is the relationship of love. It was shown above that Berdyaev perceives the relationship between God and man that takes place in«spiritual sphere». It was also said that he connected this spiritual experience with knowledge,
namely with symbolic and mythological knowledge, which is also understood as the path to the gnosis of the Deity. Speaking of Gnosis, first of all, it is noted that Berdyaev does not pay due attention to the analysis of this issue, does not reveal the importance that he attaches to it. However, this question is very important for our study, because it is the clarification of the concept of gnosis that may reveal the difference between Berdyaev's speculations and the Christian view, and, above all, what is connected with the relationship between Christ and man. We can note two sides, two aspects of this spiritual experience, the experience of knowing the Deity. Usually gnosis (yvcbaig) is understood as almost synonymous with spiritual enlightenment, and means a direct experience of divine reality. As such, this is not ordinary knowledge, but is seen as esoteric, hidden from the common man, whose intuitive abilities are too weak. And yet, this knowledge is available to all who work hard to make their way in the sacred frontier. The very use of the word«gnosis»Ber-dyaev seems problematic, especially with regard to Christianity. After all, as already noted, gnosis is understood as esoteric knowledge, the Christian way is revealed as love. It is implied that the very basis of Christianity is in the love-relationship between Christ and man. In the Gospel of John, Christ does not ask Peter about anything other than:«do you love me?»(INN 21:16). Christian salvation is very far from salvation by gnosis. Also, in Christianity«knowledge» Deities are better understood in connection with the grace of Christ and the action of the Holy Spirit in man in response to that grace.
Berdyaev does not pay attention to the ascent of man to the knowledge of the Deity, it is about the Neo-platonic elements in the system of Dionysius the Are-opagite, namely, that«each cause is and remains in its cause, arises from it and return to it». This image symbolizes the ontological division of being in the process of creation as well as the cosmic reverse collection of reality in its divine source in the preserving return, Dionysius emphasizes the epistomology of this«Ascend-ing and descending movements»: Divineprocession there is divine self-revelation, the return is through knowledge and «ignorance»[13].
To demonstrate the role «denial» in the opinion of the Areopagite, it is necessary to begin with its definition «symbol». First of all, this is about«Chris-tian»symbols that mean biblical and liturgical symbols. The negation function is related to the interpretation of these symbols. Indeed, «the process of interpreting biblical and liturgical symbols is the first step in ascending to God.» because «their first goal is to elevate the believer from the reality of sensory perception to the reality of the intellect» [12]Thus, sensory and material symbols are evaluated according to their sublime role, because they pave the way up, which leads beyond them, to a higher reality. Although,«exaltation does not take place with the help of only one symbol, as if they possessed magical power; it occurs in the course of their comprehension, in conceptual Russia from sensory «up» to conceptual» [9]. This form of interpretation is«negative theology». To understand how nega-
tion works in interpretations of symbols, it must be recognized that biblical statements that must be confirmed and challenged are arranged in a continuum of relative similarity and dissimilarity. Symbolic statements about God and angels are not denied automatically and indiscriminately. They are carefully interpreted to leave behind the apparent similarity that is stated in the symbol, but is in fact erroneous and should be recognized as a dissimilarity to be denied and with this negation can come to the true meaning of the symbol, implying approval of the symbol at a higher level. In this interpretation of the symbolic, assertion and negation are combined to take the interpreter beyond the perceived to the conceptual. And then the conceptual is denied and left behind.«negative theology»participates in both stages of this ascent. According to the first, the relative incompatibility of all perceived images leads to the fact that the statements and objections when combined give the conceptual meaning of these symbols. According to the second, the principle of negation is systematically applied to this higher or attained sphere of spiritual interpretations. As the highest cause of all, God is proportionally revealed in all creation and in human knowledge. However, surpassing everything. God is not fully known in creation or in any human concept. Although, the denial of the concept is not just a rational approach or an abstract theory of epistemology. This is a climb,«way up through denial», which puts the soul in a frenzy, changes it to «ecstatic»and leads her to union with God '. The Areopagite has a certain under-standing«symbol», namely the biblical and liturgical, and that material and perceived play an important role in «lifting», aged to the root cause. God. So,«de-nial»has a special function in this process. With the help of this analysis of negative theology, we can analyze Berdyaev's statement that«only apophatic thinking about Ungrund-e is possible»[13]. First of all, it can be noted that Berdyaev understands«symbol» in context «myth», for example, the Christian myth of the Atonement and the Redeemer and the mythologism of the Divine Trinity and the divine-human nature of Christ. Here we can see the difference between this myth and this mythology, because the former says that it is necessary to discover its meaning, and the latter rather emphasizes the impossibility of understanding them by«rational thinking»Berdyaev writes not so much about the interpretation of myths as the Areopagite, for example, writes about the interpretation of biblical and liturgical symbols, but about the discovery of their meaning, which is possible through symbolic and mythological consciousness. Unlike the Areopagite, Christ, the Godman, lies at the heart of Berdyaev's thinking in this regard. Berdyaev begins with faith in Christ. Thus, Berdyaev connects the very possibility of knowing God, which he means«transition from concept to symbol and myth», with the acquisition of Christ's mind. Indeed, Berdyaev argues, «only the mind of Christ enables the immanent comprehension of the Godhead. Upon the acquisition of Christ's mind there is a catastrophe of the old of our consciousness». Even if Berdyaev emphasizes faith here, he writes incorrectly about it, because faith, above all, speaks of a person's
attitude to Christ. This attitude is a love-attitude. Analysis of negative theology in the Areopagite in the context of Berdyaev's statement that «only apophatic thinking about Ungrand is possible» [8], shows that the philosopher misunderstands negative theology, understanding it as simply a denial of positive statements about God. Berdyaev only defines the symbol in connection with the myth and does not give«charac-ters» Ungrund-a and does not indicate what to do with any characters except «discovering their meaning» that is possible in the acquisition of the mind of Christ. Berdyaev does not point out that the acquisition of the mind of Christ, above all, speaks of man's relationship to Christ, and the fact that this attitude is a love-attitude, which includes the constant desire of man to live by the Spirit in Christ. Indeed, through this relationship between man and Christ, man participates in the Divine life, in the Trinity, in the same relationship that Christ has with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Such terms used by Berdyaev as «gnosis» and knowledge of God» not entirely successful, because they do not develop a position that reveals the meaning of these terms, and when showing their expressions in philosophy and theology, he argues that they are too «rational» and «not human».
As a result, it turns out that Berdyaev inadequately understands negative theology, interpreting it as simply a denial of positive statements about God. In addition, Berdyaev defines the symbol only in connection with the myth and does not develop the "symbols" of Ungrund. does not say what to do with them, except for "discovering their meaning" in the acquisition of the mind of Christ. .
References
1. Berdyaev N.A.From reflections on theodicy // Way. Paris., 1927. JST (April). P. 50-62.
2. Berdyaev N.A.Philosophy of the free spirit. M., 1994.p.56-58
3. Doctrine in The Church of England. The report of the commission on Christian doctrine appointed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York in 1922. London., 1962.
4. Berdyaev N.A.Creativity and objectification. Experience of eschatological metaphysics. M., 2000.
5. Dionysius the Areopaglte. The Mystical Theology and The Divine Names. N.Y., 2004.
6. Lossky V. Essay on the mystical theology of the Eastern Church. - P. 9-36.
7. Berdyaev N.A. Spirit and reality. - P. 433.
8. Areopagite D. On divine names // Mystical theology of the Eastern Church. - M., 2001. - P. 389390.
9. Lossky V.N. Theology and Vision. - P. 9.
10. Bulgakov S.N. Evening light: contemplations and speculations. M., 1994. - P.1.
11. Solovyov V. Teachings about God-humanity. - P. 111.
12. Lossky V.N. Apophase and Trinity Theology IILossky VN Theology and Vision. - P. 14.
13. Royem R. The sublime spirituality of PseudoDionysius // Christian spirituality: Origins of the twelfth century, ed. Bernard McGinn and John Meyerdorf (with Jean Leclerc) London., 1986. P. 134.
