Antanas Maceina : "Kuo jūs mane laikote?" (Mt 16, 15)

Abstract

Straipsnyje nagrinėjamas Antano Maceinos vaidmuo Lietuvos filosofijos istorijoje. Remiantis autobiografine ir istorine medžiaga akcentuojamas filosofijos ir teologijos santykio prieštaringumas Maceinos kūryboje, jo atsiribojimas nuo jaunystėje įgyto neoscholastinio išsilavinimo, „krikščionybės filosofijos“ postulavimas kaip konflikto tarp filosofinio klausimo ir tikėjimo atsakymo sprendimo būdas

The article aims at the historical investigation based on Antanas Maceina’s and his contemporaries’ memoirs, letters and various records about his life and work as a philosopher. In the title, the question of Maceina’s philosophical identity is raised. Who was Maceina in his own eyes, as well as in the eyes of his contemporaries and who is he today for the new generation of Lithuanian philoso-phers? In the beginning of the article, the theme of the “coming back”, suggested by Alvydas Šliogeris, is devel-oped. The revival of the past turns to its loss, because “coming back” to the same world being the same is an impossible task. Today the new generation of Lithuanian philosophers does not know Maceina, at least they do not understand the problems of his philosophy adequately. In the contemporary world, Maceina’s philosophy is viewed as archaic and outdated probably because of the paradigm change which has occurred at the end of Modernity and has turned some fields of philosophy incommensurable. One of the fields changing is the great concern for one’s Weltanschauung consisted of certain positive unquestionable convictions. In Maceina’s case, being a Christian necessary entails having some convictions which can be hold “theological”. On the other hand, being a philosopher entails liberty of thought and interpretation. In this regard, “theological” sometimes means “forced” and “dogmatic”. In the article, Maceina’s attitude is compared to the Heidggerian one, exemplified by such prominent theo-logians as Jozeph Ratzinger and Karl Rahner. Maceina treats philosophy as being essentially a question and theology as an answer; it means their going contrariwise and inevitably getting into collusion. [...]