[6.9.4] Bruno on Philosophy and Religion  

Giordano Bruno (1548–1600) wrote about philosophy and religion:

  • The Universe aggregates human beings, among others.
  • Philosophy characterizes human being.
  • Religion characterizes human being

The following OntoUML diagram shows Bruno’s model of philosophy and religion:

Giordano Bruno wrote about philosophy and religion
ClassDescriptionRelations
Universe“The universe was perfect. It could not be otherwise. It was, essentially, a bodily manifestation of God. Nothing in the universe, however “mean”, was “unconducive to the integrity and perfection of what is excellent”.member of
HumanBeing“Soul and body are components of a human being
PhilosophyPhilosophy and religion were, so to speak, two parallel paths, suited to different audiences”characterizes
Religion“Philosophy and religion were, so to speak, two parallel paths, suited to different audiences.
[…]
Marsilio Ficino, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (in one phase of his career) and other Renaissance authors had held similarly “Pelagian” views that philosophy led to self-perfection and “deification”. Yet they had stopped well short of denying the integrity of Christianity. Philosophy and religion were, so to speak, two parallel paths, suited to different audiences. Bruno
had no such scruples. Philosophy—Bruno’s philosophy of God as immanent in an infinite universe as announced in The Ash Wednesday Supper—was the true bread of life. It
“illuminated the blind”, “loosed the tongue of the dumb”, “cured the lame”, so that the human spirit could once again “progress” (BOI I, 454). Its powers, that is, were miraculous, Christ-like, salvific. By contrast, Christianity was fraudulent. Under a thin veil of irony, all the while denying the irony, Bruno praised the various guises under which Christianity taught that ignorance of the natural world led the soul to God. Among its many deceits were: scriptural injunctions to acknowledge our ignorance, notably, the Pauline theme of folly; the ascetic mysticism of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and mystics generally; claims that the light of faith and revelation were superior to human knowledge; Augustine’s emphasis on the fallen nature of mankind, particularly the corruption of knowledge innate to it; injunctions to be childlike and meek; and the humility and obedience that the Christian clergy sought to instill among its flock (BOI II, 381–384, 415, 418, 422–430, 443–448; BOL I.2, 316). The philosopher should ignore these “foolish dreams” (BOL I.3, 200)—in practical as well as in intellectual endeavor. To be virtuous was to strive against adversity, to embody a coincidence of opposites. “Where opposites meet, there is order, there resides virtue” (BOI II, 549). Who deserved praise the more: someone who healed a worthless cripple, or a man who liberated his homeland or who reformed, not a mere body, but a mind (BOI II, 264–267)? In other words, who was the true savior: Christ or Bruno?”
characterizes

Sources

  • Knox, Dilwyn, “Giordano Bruno“, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

First published: 2023/03/11

[5.0.4] John Philoponus on Monophysitism

John Philoponus (490-570 AD) worked on the theory of consubstantial nature and properties:

  • Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have properties
  • These properties are the components of God.

The following OntoUML diagram shows the main classes in this model:

John Philoponus on monophisite theology
CLASSDESCRIPTIONRELATIONS
GodChristan God
“Against Sabellian or modalist notions being advanced at Alexandria by a Monophysite named Themistius (a deacon who led a group called Agnoetae opposed the patriarch Theodosius), and at Constantinople by the Chalcedonian John Scholasticus, Philoponus wrote his book On the Trinity to argue his case. The nature shared in common has no reality apart from the existents or hypostases. We must anathematise three deities, three natures, but also deny that there is an actual Godhead distinguishable even in thought from Father, Son and Spirit. Father, Son and Spirit are consubstantial in nature and substance, but not in their properties; there distinct. We do not say that the Father or the Spirit became incarnate.
Divine unity is an intellectual abstraction, and the Trinity consists substances, three natures, considered in an individual rather”
FathersPropertyFather’s property “Father […] are consubstantial in nature and substance, but not in their properties; there distinct. We do not say that the Father or the Spirit became incarnate”subkind of property; componen of
SonsPropertySons’ property: “Son […] are consubstantial in nature and substance, but not in their properties; there distinct. We do not say that the Father or the Spirit became incarnate”subkind of property; componen of
HolySpirits PropertyHoly Spirit property “Spirit Holy […] consubstantial in nature and substance, but not in their properties; there distinct.”subkind of property; componen of
HumanPropertyHuman property is consubstantial (homooúsios) with us humans subkind of property;
componen of
ConsubstantialHuman property is consubstantial (homooúsios) with us humans
PropertyProperty

Sources

  • HENRY CHADWICK: PHILOPONUS THE CHRISTIAN THEOLOGIAN IN SORABJI, RICHARD: “HILOPONUS AND THE REJECTION OF ARISTOTELIAN SCIENCE”, EDITED BY RICHARD SORABJI INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON 2010

First published: 27/8/2022