FEATURES OF EXPLICATION OF LOVE BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SECOND SOPHISTIC

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17721/sophia.2022.20.12

Keywords:

second sophistic, ancient philosophy, love, human life, nature of love, ancient philosophy of love

Abstract

In the article, on the basis of the problem approach, a historical-philosophical reconstruction of the understanding of love in the movement of the second sophistic is performed. Its features and contribution to the development of the implicit philosophy of love are considered. It is proved that in the movement of the second sophistic, for the first time in historical and philosophical discourse, we can see an explicit thought about love not just as a feeling, but as a huge work, which involves incredible efforts and tensions of the participants in love discourse. The thinkers of the second sophistic also emphasized the rationality of the nature of love, thus such an understanding of love significantly raises it to such a height among all other human feelings. There- fore, love, which is able to know everything around and helps a person to know the Other, is not mercantile or evaluative, but creates in the human soul responsibility for the one she loves. It is revealed that the peculiarity of the explication of love in the second sophistic is also the understanding of love as a phenomenon of power, and the discourse of love as a discourse of war and conquest. It is these sentences that largely determined the course of development of the Renaissance philosophy of love and the emergence of courtly culture. It is shown that it is this school of the history of ancient philosophy that paid great attention to understanding parental love, emphasizing not just the connection and proximity to the animal world, but revealing the timeless depth and meaning of the relationship between children and parents.

References

Bauman Z. Individualizirovannoe obshchestvo. Moskva : Logos. 2005.

Bratus' B. Lyubov' kak psihologicheskaya prezentaciya chelovech- eskoj sushchnosti, Voprosy filosofii, 2009, No12, s.30–42.

Gadamer G.-G. Aktual'nost' prekrasnogo, Aktual'nost' prekrasnogo. Moskva : Iskusstvo, 1991, s.266–290.

Gil'debrand D. fon. Metafizika lyubvi. Sankt-Peterburg : Aletejya, 1999.

Golovach U. "Eros" bezdomnij abo vіchnij podorozhnіj u poshukah vtrachenogo rayu, DUH І LІTERA, 2002, No10, s.357–368.

Gryun A. ZHiti v domі lyubovі. L'vіv : Svіchado. 2005

ZHmir V. Vozlyubi?, Fіlosofs'ka dumka, 2006, No6, s.125–145.

Zubec O. Moral' v zerkale lyubvi, Razmyshleniya o lyubvi. Moskva : Znanie, 1989, s.3–18.

Manussakis D.P. Bog posle metafiziki. Bogoslovskaya estetika. Kiїv : DUH І LІTERA, 2014.

Ruzhmon Deni de. Iskusstvo lyubit' i iskusstvo voevat', Kollezh sociologii. Sankt-Peterburg : "Nauka", 2004, s.267–291.

Ryurikov YU. Detstvo chelovecheskoj lyubvi, Filosofiya lyubvi. Moskva : Politizdat T.1. 1990, s.16–35.

Solov"eva, S.V. Fenomeny vlasti v bytii cheloveka: avtoref. dis. na soisk. uchen.step. dokt. filosof. nauk. 09.00.11 – social'naya filosofiya. Samara, 2010.

Sorokin P. Tainstvennaya energiya lyubvi, Sociologicheskie issle- dovaniya, 1991, No8, s.121–137.

Frank S. L. S nami Bog, Traktaty o lyubvi, Moskva : IF RAN, 1994, s.101–128.

YAnnaras H. Filiya, agape i eros v cerkovnoj perspektive, CHe- lovecheskaya celostnost' i vstrecha kul'tur. Kiїv : DUH І LІTERA, 2007, s.62–67.

Aelianus.Varia Historia, Ed. R. Hercher, Leipzig. 1820.

Apuleius.The Golden Ass, being the Metamorphoses of Lucius Apu- leius. Stephen Gaselee. London: William Heinemann; New York: G.P. Put- nam's Sons. 1915

Аthenaei Naucratitiae. Deipnosophistarum libri XV, rec. G. Kaibel. Lipsiae: Teubner. 1887.

Auli Gelli. Noctium Atticarum. Libri XX. Post M. Hertz ed. C. Hosius, 2 voll. Lipsiae: Teubner, 1903.

Dio Chrysostomus. Sophista. Ed. Guy de Budé, Leipzig, 1919.

Flavius Philostratus. ΒίοιΣοφιστῶν. C. L. Kayser (edit.), 2 vol, Lipsiae, in aedibus B. G. Teubneri. 1871.

Goldhill S. Constructing identity in Philostratus 'Love Letters", in E. Bowie and J. Elsner (eds). Philostratus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp.287–305.

LucianiSamosatensis.Opera.ExrecensioneG.Dindorfil,Paris.1884. 24. Plutarch.Moralia.GregoriusN.Bernardakis.Leipzig.Teubner.1891. 25. Richlin A. Reading Boy Love and Child Love in the Greco-Roman World, Sex in Antiquity, Exploring Gender and Sexuality in the Ancient World. Routledge, 2015, рр.352–374.

Richter D.S. The Oxford Handbook of the Second Sophistic, Oxford University Press, 2017.

Schmidt T. S. Perceptions of the Second Sophistic and Its Times, University of Toronto Press, 2011.

Whitmarsh T. Beyond the Second Sophistic: Adventures in Greek Postclassicism, University of California Press, 2013

Published

2022-08-27

How to Cite

Turenko, V. (2022). FEATURES OF EXPLICATION OF LOVE BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SECOND SOPHISTIC. SOPHIA. Human and Religious Studies Bulletin, 20(2), 53-57. https://doi.org/10.17721/sophia.2022.20.12