Спрямованість на іншого як визначальна риса антропології Corpus Areopagiticum (Focus on another as a defining feature of antropology Corpus Areopagiticum)

У статті розглянуто специфіку стосунків «Людина-Інший» у їх онтологічному вимірі в антропології Corpus Areopagiticum. Базою для такого дослідження постає ієрархія, яку окреслив Діонісій Ареопагіт. На думку автора, її розгортання постає в межах, так би мовити, «золотої середини» (порівняно з концептами таких представників середньовічної містики, як Мейстер Екхарт та Хільдегарда Фон Бінген), що й дає можливість автору відтворити специфічний трикутник взаємовідносин «Бог-Я-Інший». Це дає можливість пролити світло (в термінології містичної філософії – як у символічному, так і в буквальному сенсі) на розуміння людиною Іншого, на співвідношення «суб’єкт-суб’єкт» та провести паралелі зі спробами осмислення проблеми екзистенційного осягнення Іншого у філософії кінця ХХ ст. (The article deals with specificity of relations «Human – Another» in their ontological dimension in anthropology Corpus Areopagiticum. The basis for this research raises hierarchy, which outlined Dionysius Areopagite. According to the author, deployment appears within, so to speak, the «golden mean»: it runs along the thin line between excessive individualization process knowledge of God (which is inherent in such representative medieval mystics like Meister Eckhart and Hildegard von Bingen) and hyperbolic historicization in which the human person there is only a «cog» of the global social system. From these two concepts Areopagite different is that in addition to the actual knowledge of God, his scheme describes as the relations «man-man» and «man-angel», that is, to put it more «intimate» language, which is inherent in his treatise – «I – Another», which can not touch up in parallel with attempts to understanding the problem of existential philosophy of understanding Another in the end. The relationship between two individuals is always something secretly and deeply irrational; their determination is a matter not schematic and almost eludes description, because for penetration into this newly created world should be two third – and in respect of which went to a count-dimension being the two creatures. In Areopagite – is God as lofty Nothing root cause, the Creator; in Eckhart – Divine Nothing, God the Absolute; in Baudrillard – is no cause, prototype, loss of communication with him, leading to a leveling another display. In any case, a triangle of relationships makes it possible to shed light (in terms of mystical philosophy – both symbolically and literally) to understanding another person, the ratio of «subject-subject». Since the purpose of the hierarchy of Dionysius is the ascent to God, and the relationship between members of the hierarchy is is subordinate her own Areopagus consider another as to who can contribute to unity with the Creator. More ready for relationships is the one who most fully, to the extent of its capabilities, embodies the image of the Divine essence, that is the one who most clearly reflects the divine light – and this, Areopagus, those who by nature is closest to God, being the «mind»(νόες),« (spiritual) light»(φῶτα), «the most transparent and unspoiled mirrors» (ἔσοπτρα διειδέστατα καὶ ἀκηλίδωτα), which immediately perceive the divine light and transmit it to others.In Areopagite heritage we see a meeting of the three aspects that modern man can make only a very paradoxical unity: first, to unity with the Creator prerequisite is communication – because only through the reflection of light in the Another we can perceive the Divine nature (and therefore, and take the path of mystical comprehension); Second, this path involves several steps, one of which ablatione – shearing cover «sensible» and «foreseeable things», that is, in a sense, pure abstraction rozsudkove of subject-object relations; and the other – that’s withdrawal «νοερας ενεργειαζ», «close union with the ineffable light» because deep knowledge of God is made not mentally level, but at a higher – spiritual, which connects the Areopagus in love – έρως. How it all connect? Knowledge of the Another, which is necessarily a condition of recognition of God should have no sensible character – it must be present alienation / ablatione, which would neutralize the subject-object relationship between the «I- Another» and prevent Another, which eventually would lead to the removal of their own intellectual and moving to another level of unity. But that was pretty realistic, feasible for the mystical consciousness of early Christians, now there almost lost – as evidenced by virtually all the work of one of the most relevant thinkers of our time – Jean Baudrillard. And this is our condition – like mirrors – leads to the fact that our relations with others are already almost ontological existential doom, overcome the issue which is the task of modern philosophy.