Essence of Organic Life In Russian Orthodox and Modern Philosophical Tradition: Beyond Functionalism and Elementarism

1. Entity type Lemma
2. Original titleEssence of Organic Life In Russian Orthodox and Modern Philosophical Tradition: Beyond Functionalism and Elementarism
3. Language term English
4. lemma author Tampakis, Kostas
5. Publication date 2004
6. lemma work Essence of Organic Life In Russian Orthodox and Modern Philosophical Tradition: Beyond Functionalism and Elementarism
7. lemma manifestations Science and Religion in Context: Metanexus Annual Conference : Philadelphia 5-9 July 2004
8. Keywords Life - materialism - Idealism - Bergson - Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich
9. Lemma body

   1. This paper aims to discuss the conception of life in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, especially in the Russian context. The paper begins by underlining how, in the Russian Orthodox Tradition, life is understood as a remarkable harmony or agreeable order in God's Creation, where flesh is like a temple of spirituality strengthened and sanctified by the power of Divine grace. Russian theology is primarily based on the ideas of H. Bergson, P. Teilhard de Chardin and Hegel. During the Soviet period, “Idealism” and “Materialism” emerged as a shift from ideological philosophy. Various categorizations were proposed. Chief among them was the “Systematic” and “Meta-systematic” understanding of objects (V.P. Kuzmin, 1986), “Naturalistic” and “Anthropomorphic” principles for cognizing the essence of objects (A.Tchanyshev 1981), “Objectivism” and “Subjectivism” (B.T. Grigorian, 1973). Later on, Yu.A. Shreider (1990) opposed “Naturalistic” and “Individualistic” principles for interpretation the world, S.N. Smirnov (1978) emphasized “Functional” and “Structural” principles for the development of a scientific interpretation of objects, S. Petrov (1980) distinguished between “Structural”, “Functional”, “Phenomenological”, and “Substratum-substantial” principles, B.M. Kedrov (1980) between “Functional” and “Substratum” principles, while A.R. Sokolov (1985) worked mainly with “Functional-substantial” principles. What all these intellectuals have in common, the paper proposes, is a willingness to deny the dogma of State Marxism in favor of a dialogue with Western philosophical and Church traditions. The author then discusses more contemporary views on life, which take into account the achievements of modern science. They differ from one another over a number of points. An important dichotomy is the one between “Organismic” and “Biospheric (Macro-evolutional)” definitions, which differ in understanding of the objects of Biology, such as organisms, biospheres or the process of evolution as a whole. Another analysis can be made on the basis of the general logical level of the definition itself. It could either determine common spatial and temporal features of the object defined or express the substance of phenomena, the basis of common and differentiating features, empirical and essential peculiarities, or phenomenological and fundamental definitions. Depending on the way how the essence of phenomena is understood, the definitions are divided into “Substratural (substratum)”, “Structural”, “Substantional (substantial)” and “Functional”, “Functional-composite” and “Structural-functional”. The paper ends by putting forward a list of these different definitions, discussing their strengths and disadvantages. It also includes an addendum with different definitions of life.