This exegetical article seeks to offer a close reading of Ecclesiastes that would allow us to surmount the difficulties associated with its exegesis. The book’s text is widely known to be replete with contrasts and antinomies that introduce a certain vagueness to its writer’s intentions. The article suggests that the reader should approach the book as if it was written as a first-person logbook which appears, superficially, to have been written in no logical order, at random, and at different times according to the order of the writer’s experiences and meditations. Such an approach would reduce the readers’ expectations for a logical order and would direct them to a deeper examination of the logical contexts scattered throughout the book. The article also presents the determinist con­texts of reality and their association with a wise person’s perspective as opposed to the randomness associated with a fool’s perspective. The writer’s sceptical descriptions of his encounter with reality and his first-person thoughts about this reality express an explicitly critical view of reality. The writ­er’s pre-reflexive doubt is thus nothing but a methodical doubt akin to Descartes’ pre-cogito doubts. An attentive reader will identify that the book’s text encompasses a reflexive/critical perspective on a sceptical view of reality. As such, the writer’s critical view voids the fool’s non-reflexive sceptical perspective (which is reflected in a superficial reading of the book’s text). The article’s close read­ing of the book thus posits a fool’s vanity which is a “vexation of spirit” (KJV) [re‘ut ruah․] among those who view reality as being coincidental. Conversely, it also posits a wise person’s vanity, which is a “vexation of spirit” [ra‘ayon ruah․], which critiques the fool’s pre-reflexive random view of reality as vanity and as a vexation of spirit [re‘ut ruah․]. This view of the wise person, whose “eyes are in his head” (2:14), is the true free will the writer is alluding to.

In this article, we present a proposal for a synthetic theoretical approach of the myth of Atlantis, firstly presented by Plato in his Timaeus, and, subsequently, systematically approached by Proclus. Τhis is first and foremost a literary subject which in Proclus’ texts, involves many disciplines and causes general interest for research. The main question to deal with since Plato’s era is whether this is a myth or a true story. In our view, Proclus’ comments on the Timaeus appear to be quite important, for they constitute the most detailed and extended original source, which provides a number of interdisciplinary and interpretative approaches. In every case, four are the pillars according to Proclus for any research on the Atlantis hypothesis. Specifically, for Proclus one should approach the story from a historical, natural-scientific/geophysical, epistemological and philosophical point of view. That is to say, Syrianus’ student perspective is as synthetic as possible. Methodologically, he combines the scientific-analytical with the philosophical-synthetic and the theological-hermeneutical aspect, in order to give answers to particular questions. In this way, he aims to avoid simplistic readings and scientific dogmatism and to show a new spirit with decisive axiological judgments. In our general approach which follows we mostly attempt to show how in his commentary Proclus brings together natural sciences with ethics and politics in a frame in which the natural world appears as an authentic reflection of the metaphysical level.

An expression apophatic philosophy can be understood as an appropriate synonym for a more traditional expression apophatic theology. Traditional philosophical views on the mystery of God created besides its mere rational reflection also thought which is over-rational but definitely not antirational. It can be found in texts in the field of mysticism, both religious and philosophical. Classical Greek culture joined with Christian faith. Therefore, we cannot talk about it as an individual entity being separated by these two worlds. Athens can be recognized in Jerusalem – to use expression of Leo Shestov. A symbol joins the mind. Can anybody still follow its directness? Slovenian philosophical field has developed specific understanding for Christian mystical tradition in its high theoretical expression. Most credit can be given to the thought of Gorazd Kocijančič (born 1964), a philosopher, poet, translator and publisher since it confirms axiomatics of the reality of a spiritual world, which does not correspond to any other reality. Radical denial or negation (apo-fasko) as a modus vivendi of philosophy represents at the same time a relationship of a radical openness between mysteries of God and human being. This contribution will mostly focus on Kocijančič’s synthesis from his philosophical trilogy: Razbitje: Sedem radikalnih esejev [Being broken apart: seven radical essays] (2009), Erotika, politika itn. Trije poskusi o duši [Erotics, politics etc.: three essays on the soul] (2011), O nekaterih drugih: Štirje eseji o preobilju [On some others: four essays on superabundance] (2016) and mainly on his relationship towards phenomenological thinking. As he stresses in his preface to his translation of Levinas’ Le temps et l’autre, apophatics goes beyond the phenomenology.

The following account explores, the issues of the spirituality of the heart, understood as the central spiritual organ of the human being. We analyse the patristic tradition regarding the necessity of protecting the spiritual heart, against all possible attacks. Our main concern is to analyse the tension between the heart and the mind. To understand the dynamics of the relationship between the heart and the mind and to understand the relationship of the heart with love and other related concepts. We discern two forms of spiritualities of the heart, which basically either give preference to the predominance of the heart over the mind or vice versa. If we understand love as being unpredictable and free, what is the consequence of this for the mind and its functions? If we understand the mind and reason to be operating on certain unchangeable principles and conditions how then can we understand the issue of the mind controlling the heart or the hearts relationship with the mind. The theme is important in our contemporary period where there is a clear separation between the mind and the heart, between freedom and love and data and information. The theme is highly relevant today not least because emotionality and love are being relativised or limited by the onset of mechanical processes related to information technology and the mind of the human being itself. In our humble contribution within the limits we have we refer to the thought of Basil the Great and Gregory Palamas.

In this paper we try to give some further evidence concerning the chronology of Palamas’ treatise Contra Beccum. Taking into consideration different parameters, external and internal, we incline to think that this treatise was composed – or, at least, reworked – in 1355, approximately at the same period when Palamas published the second edition of his Logoi apodeiktikoi.