Criticism of social constructivism in the post-metaphysical theology of communication by O. Filonenka

author: Vasyl Lozovytskyi

Urgency of the research. The topicality of the topic is determined by the need to carry out a study of the methodology of modern post-metaphysical Ukrainian Orthodox theology of communication. It is important for us to consider how the methodology of post-metaphysical Ortho-dox theology was formed, what influences existed here at the level of ideas, concepts and approaches, and what is its position regarding the knowledge of the real.

Target setting. Modern post-metaphysical theology of communication arises on the wave of criticism of the prevailing in cinema. 20th century paradigms of constructivism and semantic pluralism, which develops postmodern approaches in which knowledge of the real loses its own criteria.

Actual scientific researches and issues analysis. In Ukrainian science, important work has been carried out on the understanding and criticism of the main Orthodox theological concepts and methodological approaches to the development of modern Orthodox theology. At the same time, the methodology of Ukrainian Orthodox postmetaphysical theology remains without proper research.

The research objective. Our task is to determine the main conceptual influences that became the ideological basis of O. Filonenko's post-metaphysical theology of communication; establish the circle of basic paradigms that he uses and within which he develops his opinion; to analyze O. Filonenko's position regarding the basic methodological concepts of constructivism and polysemanticism.

The statement of basic materials. As a result of the critical achievements of the representatives of the linguistic and pragmatic turns of the 20th century, the belief that knowledge and social practices are embedded in language was established, and this makes them so inseparable that we begin to see reality as the result of cognitive and social construction. They recognize the distance between the world and consciousness, between language and the objectivity of the world, which make the problem of encountering the real impossible. We investigated that the formation of O. Filonenko's postmetaphysical position was influenced by J. Derrida, J. Caputo, Zh.L. Marion, H.U. Humbrecht, J. Milbank. Under their influence, O. Filonenko questions the use of social constructivism as a universal social-humanitarian methodology and theological methodology

Conclusions. A tangible problem of the philosophy of the 20th century. the search for a way back to the real began. A significant contribution to its understanding was made by the representatives of the post-metaphysical paradigm, J. Derrida, Zh.L. Marion, H. Humbrecht and J. Mil-bank, who significantly influenced the formation of O. Filonenko's methodology. The Ukrainian thinker criticizes the concept of constructivism, as such, in which reality and God are forgotten, which appear as products of social and cognitive reconstruction.

Keywords: modern Orthodox Ukrainian theology, methodology of Orthodox theology, post-metaphysical theology, theology of communication 

 References:

  1. Vankhuzer, KDzh 2007, Yskusstvo ponymanyia teksta. Lyteraturovedcheskaia etyka y tolkovanye Pysanyia (The art of understanding the text. Literary ethics and scripture interpretation), per. s anhl., Cherkassy: Kollokvyum, 736 s.
  2. Humbrekht, KhU 2006, Proyzvodstvo prysutstvyia: Cheho ne mozhet peredat znachenye (Production of presence: What cannot convey meaning), per. s anhl. S. Zenkyna, Moskva: Novoe lyteraturnoe obozrenye, 184 s.
  3. Derryda, Zh 1999, Holos y fenomen (Voice and phenomenon), per. s fr., SPb.: ALETEIIA, 208 s.
  4. Zontah, S 1997, Protyv interpretatsyy, Mysl kak strast (Against interpretation, Thought as passion), Moskva: Russkoe fenomenolohycheskoe obshchestvo, 208 s.
  5. Levynas, E 2000, Yzbrannoe: Totalnost y beskonechnoe (Favorites: Totality and Infinity), per., M.; SPb.: Unyversytetskaia knyha, 416 s.
  6. Mylbank, Dzh. 2022, Teolohyia y sotsyalnaia teoryia. Po tu storonu sekuliarnoho razuma (Theology and social theory. Beyond the secular mind), per. A. Kyrlezheva, D. Uzlanera, M.: Teoestetyka, 736 s.
  7. Filonenko, O 2018, Prysutnist Inshoho i vdiachnist: kontury yevkharystiinoi antropolohii (The presence of the Other and gratitude: contours of eucharistic anthropology), Rivne: Diatlyk, 352 s.
  8. Fylonenko, A 2022, Teoestetyka. 7 lektsyi o krasote ( 7 lectures on beauty), Moskva: Nykeia, 272 s.
  9. Khrystokin, HV 2021, Metodolohiia pravoslavnoi teolohii v yii paradyhmalnykh transformatsiiakh (Methodology of Orthodox theology in its paradigmatic transformations), Irpin: UDFSU, 404 s.
  10. Caputo, JD 2000, ‘For Love of the Things Themselves: Derrida’s Hyper-Realism’, Journal for Cultural and Religious Theory, vol. 1, n. 3, рр. 37-61.
  11. Marion, JL 1991, God without Being, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 284 p.