History of Philosophy

Philosophy of The Middle Ages

Patristics of the 5th-7th Centuries

If the primary theme of Christian theological and philosophical thought in the 4th century was Trinitarian doctrine, focusing on proving the consubstantiality of the Son and the Holy Spirit with God the Father, then the 5th century shifted attention to Christology, exploring how divine and human natures are united in Jesus Christ. This discussion had its roots in the 4th century. Apollinaris of Laodicea argued that a human consists of spirit, soul, and body, and that in Christ, the divine and human natures are united such that Christ assumed a human soul and body, replacing the human spirit. In this view, Christ is not a complete human being. The primary critics of Apollinarianism were the Antiochene theologians Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia. They emphasized that the divine and human natures in Christ remain whole and unblemished. The core Christian doctrine is that in Christ, two natures (divine and human) are united in one person. Diodore and Theodore, focusing on the integrity of the natures in Christ, stressed the distinctness of the natures more than the unity of the person. In the 4th century, Nestorius, coming from the Antiochene school and later becoming the Archbishop of Constantinople, furthered his teachers' ideas to an extreme, asserting that in Christ there are not only two natures but also two persons, as each nature (essence) must have its own individual expression. This teaching contradicted Christian orthodoxy and was condemned as Nestorianism.

The main opponents of Nestorianism were the representatives of the Alexandrian theological school, led by Cyril of Alexandria. Cyril criticized Nestorianism from the perspective of Christian doctrine. In 431, the Council of Ephesus was convened, where Nestorianism was condemned. Even after the Council, the fervor of the debate did not diminish. Some critics of Nestorianism became so engrossed in their arguments that they fell into another extreme. While orthodox Christians asserted that Christ has two natures and one person, and Nestorians argued for two natures and two persons in Christ, their extreme opponents began to teach that the human nature is so insignificant compared to the divine that it is completely absorbed into the divine nature, resulting in one nature and one person in Christ. This teaching was known as Monophysitism. Its main proponents were Dioscorus of Alexandria and Eutyches. The debate over Monophysitism grew so intense that it threatened the peace and stability of the empire. In 451, the Council of Chalcedon was convened, which declared Monophysitism a heresy. Despite the Council's decisions, the Christological debate remained active. To finalize the discussion, the Second Council of Constantinople was held in 553.

The attempts to resolve the Monophysite controversy ultimately led to efforts to find a compromise. The Patriarch of Constantinople, Sergius, proposed a solution focusing on the concept of will, which encompasses desires and inclinations. Since will is a characteristic of nature, orthodox Christians, who believed in two natures in Christ, argued for two wills, while Monophysites, who believed in one nature, argued for one will. Sergius contended that in Christ there is one person, two natures, but one will. To the question of how there can be one will in Christ if there are two natures, Sergius responded that will is a characteristic of the person, not the nature, and since there is only one person in Christ, there must be one will. This teaching, known as Monothelitism, was rejected by both orthodox and Monophysite theologians. Although Sergius did not resolve the issue, he did initiate a new discussion on the concept of will. In 680-681, another Ecumenical Council was held in Constantinople, which condemned Monothelitism and affirmed that Christ has two wills.

The most significant influence on Christian theological thought in the 6th century came from Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, an anonymous author who adopted the name of Dionysius the Areopagite, mentioned in the Bible. His most significant contribution to philosophy was his theory of knowledge. Pseudo-Dionysius explored why human beings cannot know the essence of God. He rejected the answer that humans cannot know God due to their sinfulness, arguing instead that even after the Resurrection of Christ, human sin is washed away, yet humans still cannot know God. The impossibility is due to an insurmountable gulf between God and humanity, which cannot be crossed by reason alone. However, humans can mystically unite with God. This path consists of two stages: catharsis (purification) and ecstasy (union in love). Pseudo-Dionysius also contributed a theory of hierarchy, positing that intermediaries—nine choirs of angels—exist between God and the world. This hierarchy is mirrored in the earthly realm: the Church and society are also structured according to their hierarchy. These ideas influenced the development of Gothic art, which dominated the Middle Ages.

Another thinker of this period was Maximus the Confessor (580-662). He focused on the problem of will in the context of the Monothelite controversy. Maximus asked why, if God created man in His image, i.e., good, and if will is an expression of nature, which should only seek the good, humans sometimes desire evil and sin. To address this, he distinguished between two types of will: natural and gnomic. The natural will is the inclination towards good, embedded in human nature by God; the gnomic will is a result of the fall, representing an evil but free choice of the person. Since the gnomic will is not a characteristic of human nature but of the person, freedom's realization belongs to the person. Thus, before the fall, there was one will in humans, but after the fall, there are two. These two wills typically oppose each other: the natural will seeks to fulfill human nature, the divine plan; the gnomic will, born of sin, leads to more sin, as sin always leads to further sin. The spiritual struggle of humanity is a moral choice between the impulses of these two wills.