Философия имени в России: становление и современная дискуссия. Часть 2. Имяславие и платонизм в творчестве А.Ф. Лосева

В статье анализируются платонические и исихастские истоки имяславия и всего творчества А.Ф. Лосева. Так, по Лосеву, учение об имени «это - чистейший образец восточно-свято-отеческой мистики, восходящей через паламитов и исихастов, Симеона Нового Богослова, Максима Исповедника, Дионисия Ареопагита, Григория Нисского к неоплатонизму и Платону». Приводятся результаты анализа идей Лосева со стороны современных историков отечественной мысли, обнажаются позиции и интерпретации. Рассмотрена онтолого-метафизическая диалектика А.Ф. Лосева в трактовке имяславия: преобразование платонизма и зависимость от него. Анализируются дискуссии о возможности исихастского имяславия и христианского платонизма.

PHILOSOPHY OF THE NAME IN RUSSIA: THE BECOMING AND CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION. PART TWO. ONOMATODOXY AND PLATONISM IN THE WORKS BY A.F. LOSEV

The article reveals the importance of the subject matter of onomatodoxy for the development of metaphysics from antiquity to nowadays. It presents the analysis of the basic ontological positions of Plato's dialogue titled "Kratil" where onomatodoxy is regarded as a realistic (ontological) doctrine about a name as opposed to nominalism. Onomatodoxy is also presented as an original trend within metaphysics in Russian thought. Its evolution in the ontology of "all-unity" (according to Vl. Solovyov), based on Platonism, and the transition to the Neo-Platonist model based on the energy-essential concept of Plotinus are demonstrated. Thus, the transition from Christian Platonism to Christian Neo-Platonism took place. The antique (Platonic and Neo-Platonic) and Christian (hesychastic) sources of onomatodoxy and A. F. Losev's entire creative work have been analyzed. Losev's ontological and metaphysical dialectics has been considered in the context of onomatodoxy: the transformation of Platonism and dependence on it are revealed. The results of analysis of Losev's ideas have been presented from the point of view of the modern domestic historians (such as S. Horuzhy, L. Gogotishvili, V. Bibihin, etc.); various positions and interpretations are revealed. The conclusion follows: several versions related to Platonism have been formulated in modern historical and philosophical thought in Russia. One of them is the Christian Platonic version, presented mainly by P. Florensky, S. Bulgakov, A. Losev, and L. Gogotishvili. Another version is the anti-Platonic one, presented by V.N. Lossky, A.I. Sidorov, and S.S. Horuzhy. However, both directions tend to make a start from the tradition of hesychasm and the struggle for its adequate reflection and development in philosophical discourse (at least according to their own statements). Yet there are directions which platonize Christianity separately from hesychasm, tending to use the Western European mysticism instead. They are mainly presented by S.L. Franc and N. Berdyaev. Discussions regarding an opportunity of hesychastic onomatodoxy and Christian Platonism have been analyzed.