The Personal Dimension of Time

An excerpt from Christos Yannaras, Person and Eros, trans. Norman Russell (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2007), 133–34.

Aristotle was the first, in consequence of his understanding of time as numbered movement, to define the “between” of before and after as the indivisible unit of numbered time, the “now,” which being indivisible is also unmoved—the nothingness of movement and time [Physics].

But Aristotle also interprets the now as a “middle-point” which at the same time includes the beginning and the end (“the now is a kind of middle-point, uniting as it does in itself both a beginning and an end”) and this definition permitted Byzantine thought to see in the now the continuous present of personal immediacy. John Damascene defines the now as time “without quantity,” [Dialectica 40.52] and Basil the Great refers the now to the divine “perception” of time, which knows no motion or change [On Isaiah 119]. Maximus the Confessor sees in the now the truth of “unmoved time,” that is, of “eternity,” since “eternity…is time when it ceases from movement, and time is eternity in motion, so that eternity…is time deprived of movement, while time is eternity measured by movement” [Ambigua]. “Eternity” is the time of the fullness of the personal relationship between man and God, because time “is deprived of movement” only when “nature is united immediately with Providence.” 

At the non-dimensional boundaries of this “union,” that is of the fullness of the personal immediacy of man and God, nature “finds Providence a principle (logos) which by natureis simple and stable, and is not subject to any circumscription at all, and therefore is entirely without movement.” Circumscription signifies a boundary, a barrier, a limitation. It signifies objective individuality and, consequently, movement “from something to something”—it signifies the limitation or the destruction of non-dimensional personal immediacy. Consequently, in the physical world of objects, the personal ec-stasy of nature is necessarily measured as time and “movement in accordance with life has become a source of change for what exists in time,” because the world is a “limited stasis” in comparison with the unbounded and non-dimensional immediacy of personal relation with God. The movement that causes change in temporal nature refers to a breaking of relations—not to the natural condition of “him in whom the monad has come to be”—and is revealed as the “estrangement” of time and decay. Only “when it has come to be in God” does nature transcend time, transcend stasis and movement, “and will possess an ever-moving stasis and a stable ever-movement, having come to have its being eternally that which is same and one and alone” [To Thalassius].


An angel holding an image of time—Church of the Holy Saviour, Chora. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Presence of Aristotle in Byzantine Theology

Image
With the kind permission of Professor David Bradshaw, below is an excerpt from his chapter, “The Presence of Aristotle in Byzantine Theology” in The Cambridge Intellectual History of Byzantium , edited by Anthony Kaldellis & Niketas Siniossoglou (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017). Any attempt to survey the place of Aristotle within Byzantine theology must begin by recognizing that the category of “Byzantine theology” is itself a modern construction. The Byzantines did not think of themselves as Byzantines, but as Romans. This fact is not merely a matter of nomenclature, but a reminder of their strong sense of continuity with the classical and early Christian past. As regards theology, in particular, the Byzantines saw no sharp line dividing their own times from the foundational era of Christianity. Although they recognized the authority of the Church Fathers, they did not think in terms of a closed and completed “age of the Fathers.”[1] The holy and God-bearing Fathers
Read more

Pythagoras Byzantinus

Image
The Pythagoras Byzantinus research project aims to fill an important gap in our knowledge and understanding of the history and forms of reception of Pythagoras and Pythagoreanism in Middle and Late Byzantium, a gap that has been highlighted in the international academic bibliography. In contrast to other Medieval traditions (Latin, Arabic, Syriac and Jewish), the reception of Pythagoras and Pythagoreanism in Byzantium has not yet been studied systematically. In the relevant bibliography, there are only sporadic or fragmentary references to Pythagorean resonances in Middle and Late Byzantine texts, while the number of articles dealing with it is still extremely limited. At the same time, eminent contemporary historians of philosophy have repeatedly stressed the need to explore this rather understudied thematic field. In order to fill this existing research gap and improve our understanding of the reception of Pythagoras and Pythagoreanism in Middle and Late Byzantium, this project will
Read more

Sourcebook of Byzantine Philosophy

Image
An exciting new project known as the Sourcebook of Byzantine Philosophy (SBPh) is underway, led by Katerina Ierodiakonou, Pantelis Golitsis, Ioannis Papachristou and Dafni Argyri. According to the SBPh team, Byzantine philosophy is still overlooked by the history of philosophy. For Byzantine philosophy to be properly studied and appreciated, a SBPh, which collects the key texts of Byzantine thinkers in an accessible edition, is essential. The SBPh will contain selected Byzantine philosophical texts in the original and in English translation, and will place these texts in their historical context. Selected texts will cover the period from the 8th century to the 15th century, exploring the areas of logic, theory of knowledge, metaphysics, natural philosophy, psychology, ethics and politics. To learn more about the project, peruse the SBPh website: https://byphil.gr/ 
Read more