![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mon_kassiaКто-то там почитать хотел?
Отвечать в другой раз я ему уже не стала - как-то и не знаю, что тут можно ответить.
Письмо удалено по просьбе автора.
---------------------
Dear Vojtech,
It is unexpectedly (and pleasantly) for me that you have read my review :) I hope you were not hurt by it. Unfortunantly, I hardly can conduct "concentrated discussion over concrete texts and issues" for my English is not very good for it and I write English very slowly.
Your say: "In general, I tend not to quote everything I have read, or to dispute in extenso with other scholars. I have rather tried to construct an alternative picture of Plethon and at the same to somehow deconstruct scholarly consensus", - speaking honestly, it is not customary for me. I think, if I hold the opinion opposite to the opinions of the authors of the publications (particularly books!) about my topic, I must dispute with them, and how otherwise? The study cannot existe "in vacuum", in itself, because a scientific book is not a novel :)
You did really not name Plethon "good Christian" but you named him "firm Christian" (p. 280 of your printed book - a friend of mine made an electronic copy for me) - is not it even more impressive? In any case I do not consider Renaissance philosophers and Cyriac "good Christian" because being nominally a member of Church (and even to defend Orthodoxy in special situations) is not yet being "good Christian". It is what Siniossoglou said: "the popular trend in Renaissance and Byzantine cultural and social history of rehabilitating all ideological dissenters into a vague, potentially all-inclusive Christianity".
I thought you have not read Medvedev for you did not refer to him even speaking about Yuvenaliy. In fact Medvedev has joined Plethon and Yuvenaly and it is convincing, as I think. As I said, I am used to discuss with opposite opinions and not to ignore them.
The same is conserning Tambrun-Krasker's book. I read it and found rather convincing. I also read your review of her book. You said: "the author of the present review tendsto be sceptical about the majority of TAMBRUN-KRASKER’s general theses on Plethon’s philosophy", but is it an argument? I think, the point of her book is not what you criticized in your review, but - the thesis that Plethon created his philosophy to spite the palamism. The same is the point of Siniossoglou's book, and you do not dispute this thesis at all (if I am not mistaken) - it is very strange for me.
Your opinion about Siniossoglou's book in a note in your book surprised me. I am reading his book just now and it seems extremely interesting. Maybe there are some exaggerations there, but Siniossoglou's viewpoint as a whole seems convincing or at least noteworthy. And I agree with his opinion that "philosophical paganism" was surviving in differents forms in Byzantium - this was my own conclusion after study of the history of ideas in 9th c. Arkadi Shoufrin, my friend and specialist in philosophy read Siniossoglou book and found it interesting and convincing. I know there is a review by Ch. Kappes - I did not read it yet but its title itself "Idolizing Paganism - demonizing Christianity", in my opinion, indicate some biliousness...
In any case your book was very interesting for me, thank you! Plethon is a very enigmatic personage, and that is because I love him :))
Best regards,
Kassia
---------------
Письмо удалено по просьбе автора.
*********
Высокая наука, в общем, они все встречаются, беседуют, то-се. А ты тут сидишь в этой обезумевшей Раше и не знаешь, что вообще с ней и с тобой тут дальше будет. А если б даже я и попала на встречу оных плифонистов, то все равно не смогла бы с ними общаться, по причине крайней бедности моего разговорного английского. Да я в общем-то и не спец по этой философии. Так что мы как всегда в пролете. Зато православие из ушей лезет, да-с. Годы потрачены неведомо на что, притом же большинство из того не пригодится ни на этом свете, ни на том.
Отвечать в другой раз я ему уже не стала - как-то и не знаю, что тут можно ответить.
Письмо удалено по просьбе автора.
---------------------
Dear Vojtech,
It is unexpectedly (and pleasantly) for me that you have read my review :) I hope you were not hurt by it. Unfortunantly, I hardly can conduct "concentrated discussion over concrete texts and issues" for my English is not very good for it and I write English very slowly.
Your say: "In general, I tend not to quote everything I have read, or to dispute in extenso with other scholars. I have rather tried to construct an alternative picture of Plethon and at the same to somehow deconstruct scholarly consensus", - speaking honestly, it is not customary for me. I think, if I hold the opinion opposite to the opinions of the authors of the publications (particularly books!) about my topic, I must dispute with them, and how otherwise? The study cannot existe "in vacuum", in itself, because a scientific book is not a novel :)
You did really not name Plethon "good Christian" but you named him "firm Christian" (p. 280 of your printed book - a friend of mine made an electronic copy for me) - is not it even more impressive? In any case I do not consider Renaissance philosophers and Cyriac "good Christian" because being nominally a member of Church (and even to defend Orthodoxy in special situations) is not yet being "good Christian". It is what Siniossoglou said: "the popular trend in Renaissance and Byzantine cultural and social history of rehabilitating all ideological dissenters into a vague, potentially all-inclusive Christianity".
I thought you have not read Medvedev for you did not refer to him even speaking about Yuvenaliy. In fact Medvedev has joined Plethon and Yuvenaly and it is convincing, as I think. As I said, I am used to discuss with opposite opinions and not to ignore them.
The same is conserning Tambrun-Krasker's book. I read it and found rather convincing. I also read your review of her book. You said: "the author of the present review tendsto be sceptical about the majority of TAMBRUN-KRASKER’s general theses on Plethon’s philosophy", but is it an argument? I think, the point of her book is not what you criticized in your review, but - the thesis that Plethon created his philosophy to spite the palamism. The same is the point of Siniossoglou's book, and you do not dispute this thesis at all (if I am not mistaken) - it is very strange for me.
Your opinion about Siniossoglou's book in a note in your book surprised me. I am reading his book just now and it seems extremely interesting. Maybe there are some exaggerations there, but Siniossoglou's viewpoint as a whole seems convincing or at least noteworthy. And I agree with his opinion that "philosophical paganism" was surviving in differents forms in Byzantium - this was my own conclusion after study of the history of ideas in 9th c. Arkadi Shoufrin, my friend and specialist in philosophy read Siniossoglou book and found it interesting and convincing. I know there is a review by Ch. Kappes - I did not read it yet but its title itself "Idolizing Paganism - demonizing Christianity", in my opinion, indicate some biliousness...
In any case your book was very interesting for me, thank you! Plethon is a very enigmatic personage, and that is because I love him :))
Best regards,
Kassia
---------------
Письмо удалено по просьбе автора.
*********
Высокая наука, в общем, они все встречаются, беседуют, то-се. А ты тут сидишь в этой обезумевшей Раше и не знаешь, что вообще с ней и с тобой тут дальше будет. А если б даже я и попала на встречу оных плифонистов, то все равно не смогла бы с ними общаться, по причине крайней бедности моего разговорного английского. Да я в общем-то и не спец по этой философии. Так что мы как всегда в пролете. Зато православие из ушей лезет, да-с. Годы потрачены неведомо на что, притом же большинство из того не пригодится ни на этом свете, ни на том.