The aim of this paper is to highlight a common denominator in the work of a historian, theologian and scholars in each of the humanities. The author first clarifies his concept of the spiritual dimension, pointing out that the rectification of one’s relationship to the past as a prerequisite of the undistorted present and the future and that this remedy is, from the spiritual point of view, a sort of conversion. Another problem involves how to present the ideal in the post-ideological time. An awareness of the multi-dimensionality of reality leads us to humility in making judgements while protecting us from their absolutisation. The common denominator of the spiritual dimension of the efforts of a humanities scholar is undoubtedly an openness to transcendence, which in the work of a historian, takes a specific form, and does not have to be influenced by an explicit Christian faith.
The article examines how Hegel’s negative view of Byzantium is different from the Enlightenment’s critique and especially from Voltaire’s criticism of medieval history. In order to account for the Hegelian specificity of interpretation an effort is made to translate the chapter on Byzantium from the Philosophy of History in terms of the analysis of the Phenomenology of the Spirit and, more precisely, on the basis of the chapters on sensible certitude and on the domination and servitude. Considering that for Hegel every philosophical school possesses an autonomous value, one has to wonder why the Byzantine moment of the Spirit is destined to stagnation. The question about Hegel’s Neoplatonism, especially his affiliation with Proclus’s system, shows how the distance separating the Hegelian system from the Proclusian one explains the inadequacy of the latter as to drawing the consequences from the Byzantine spiritual stagnation.
FR
The article examines how Hegel’s negative view of Byzantium is different from the Enlightenment’s critique and especially from Voltaire’s criticism of medieval history. In order to account for the Hegelian specificity of interpretation an effort is made to translate the chapter on Byzantium from the Philosophy of History in terms of the analysis of the Phenomenology of the Spirit and, more precisely, on the basis of the chapters on sensible certitude and on the domination and servitude. Considering that for Hegel every philosophical school possesses an autonomous value, one has to wonder why the Byzantine moment of the Spirit is destined to stagnation. The question about Hegel’s Neoplatonism, especially his affiliation with Proclus’s system, shows how the distance separating the Hegelian system from the Proclusian one explains the inadequacy of the latter as to drawing the consequences from the Byzantine spiritual stagnation.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.