This paper deals with the reasons for literal interpretation of Plato’s Timaeus (Aristoteles) against non-literal (Speusippus and Xenocrates). Its starting point is “dichotomy” between poetry (mythos) and philosophy that we can find, as well, in some commentary on the Genesis of Moses. But, instead dichotomy here is suggested some kind of iterative reading: the Timaeus of Plato is the poetry because God’s act of creation is the poetry, too. Artistic elements in this dialogue of Plato are in the function of his cosmogonical realism. It is supported with the thesis that the purpose of Plato’s Timaeus is not pedagogical or didactical, but soteriological; its aim is salvation of man.

In the virtue ethics of Diadochus Photice, the notion of self-rule (αὐτεξούσιον) is of paramount importance for the creative progress in one’s moral perfection. With the proper use of self-rule man can escape sin and turn himself to love. In addition, Diadochus also uses the notion of apatheia (ἀπάθεια) to indicate the way for a successful cleansing (κάθαρσις) of the soul, so that with this cleansing man can grasp the logoi (λόγοι) of beings. According to Diadochus Photice, virtue ethics must not be conceived in an anthropocentric way, but in a theocentric one, and so virtue does not depend only on the ethical achievements of man, but on divine grace and on the personal relation of man to God.

The aims of this paper are to qualify theologically Paul Fiddes’ claim that creative writing can be understood as a response to divine revelation and to construct a preliminary sketch of a theological framework in order to appreciate textuality and move from reading literary texts in the light of theology to considering them as theology, that is, as sacraments of communion with God. What follows is, thus, an inquiry into some of the theological presuppositions and criteria, which would enable a reader with a Christian perspective to consider any literary text theologically and read it as a kind of doxology.

This paper examines the challenge that philosophers influenced by positivism posed to religion during the twentieth century, and considers how philosophers more sympathetic to theism responded to this challenge. By focusing upon the trajectory of the philosophical challenge to theismin the twentieth century, this paper seeks to highlight the various ways that the relationship between theistic faith and reason was conceived by those debating the credibility of religious belief. The paper concludes that although the conception of reason’s relationship to faith dominant at the end of the twentieth century was more conducive to creative religious thought than was that prevalent at the beginning of the century, it nevertheless generates significant unresolved problems.

The Minos is a much neglected dialogue. The scholarly attention that has been given to it is unimaginative and general. Our discussion of the Minos remedies these scholarly deficits.We have read the dialogue closely and have concluded, on a textual basis, that Socrates intends an empirical investigation of νόμος insofar as νόμος is the product of tradition and the behavior it prescribes. Our investigation also has been especially sensitive to the dialogue’s etymological sophistication. Besides Plato’s Cratylus, no other dialogue comes close to mirroring the argument explored with its etymological foundations. This observation justifies the seriousness with which we have treated Socrates’ discussion of King Minos. In fact, it is Socrates’ discussion of King Minos that unifies the dialogue as a whole. Our hope is that the treatment contained in these pages of the Minos contributes to a scholarly reevaluation of this profound and complex dialogue.