PHANTASIA BETWEEN REASON AND REVELATION: THE VISION OF IMAGINATION IN PATRISTIC SPIRITUALITY AND ORTHODOX MYSTICISM
PHANTASIA BETWEEN REASON AND REVELATION: THE VISION OF IMAGINATION IN PATRISTIC SPIRITUALITY AND ORTHODOX MYSTICISM

Summary/Abstract: This study treats phantasia as a conceptual node where the psychology of representation, the epistemology of discernment, and the theology of the Incarnation meet. In the ancient tradition, phantasia explains “how” something appears in consciousness and why an appearance may be true or false. In the patristic and Orthodox mystical tradition, the same function becomes the field of an ascetic discipline of the imagination: the mind must be healed from passionate images and idolatrous projections, without breaking from the symbolic mediation presupposed by Scripture, liturgy, and the icon (Aristotle, 2005: 328). The central argument is that Orthodox spirituality does not operate with the simplistic opposition “image = error,” but rather with a normative distinction between (a) phantasia as an unavoidable anthropological mediation (memory, anticipation, understanding through forms) and (b) phantasia as a mechanism of deception when “images” become autonomous, excite the passions, and fix God within a representation. The dogmatic consequence is twofold: apophaticism disciplines representation (God cannot be circumscribed in images), while the Incarnation legitimizes an economy of the visible (the icon and the symbol are not arbitrary projections, but ecclesial signs oriented toward the prototype). By confessional comparison, Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism converge in defending the veneration of images through the distinction between veneration and adoration and through the principle of the prototype. Reformed Protestantism emphasizes the prohibition of images as a safeguard against idolatry, often extending this caution even to representations of Christ. Dialogue with neuroscience and cognitive sciences shows that mental imagery has neural correlates that are partly shared with perception, and that the vividness of mental images varies substantially among individuals, including extremes such as aphantasia and hyperphantasia. This has ethical and pastoral implications: the spiritual life cannot be standardized according to a single imagistic pattern. The discernment of inner experiences must be complemented with clinical prudence (for example, in disorders involving intrusive images) and with patristic criteria of spiritual fruits (humility, peace, love).

• Details
• Contents