This book offers a concise, yet provocative, summation of Christos Yannaras’ long reflection on the meaning of politics. It provides vital clarification on Yannaras’ conception and understanding of politics and his interpretation of its historical development in the Western and Eastern theological/civilisational traditions. The book critiques the Western (Christian) tradition of political thought and praxis, namely its individualistic epistemology, its utilitarian political organisation, its obsession with rationalistic efficiency, and its religionized Christianity with all the destructive ideologies flowing therefrom. It aims to recover and counterpose a Greco-Christian conception and practice of politics based on communion, the ecclesia, truth as a collective and common contest or struggle to discover, reveal and manifest cosmic reality and an ontological vision of humans living in harmony with the ornamental order of the universe. With a foreword by Rowan Williams, this is a highly original and significant meditation on the meaning of politics that will be of interest to both political theologians and political philosophers.

Christos Yannaras pioneering critique of the concept of the right of the individual is presented in English for the first time. This central aspect of political theory (since Hegels Philosophy of Right) summarizes the philosophical and cultural identity of the paradigm of modernity, but the philosophical assumptions underlying the concept of right have not hitherto been subject to scrutiny. Yannaras shows that the starting-point of the concept of right is a phenomenalistic naturalism, which presupposes an abstract concept of the human subject as a fundamentally undifferentiated natural individual. The question is also explored of how the priority accorded to this concept of right is related to the contemporary crisis of the modern politico-social paradigm, while a new preface from the translator underlines the continued significance of Yannaras proposal for Anglophone readers. Against the modern concept of right with its illusion of objectivity, The Inhumanity of Right sketches out the basic lines of a political theory that prioritizes new social needs that reflect the relational character of the human person.

Christos Yannaras pioneering critique of the concept of the right of the individual is presented in English for the first time. This central aspect of political theory (since Hegels Philosophy of Right) summarizes the philosophical and cultural identity of the paradigm of modernity, but the philosophical assumptions underlying the concept of right have not hitherto been subject to scrutiny. Yannaras shows that the starting-point of the concept of right is a phenomenalistic naturalism, which presupposes an abstract concept of the human subject as a fundamentally undifferentiated natural individual. The question is also explored of how the priority accorded to this concept of right is related to the contemporary crisis of the modern politico-social paradigm, while a new preface from the translator underlines the continued significance of Yannaras proposal for Anglophone readers. Against the modern concept of right with its illusion of objectivity, The Inhumanity of Right sketches out the basic lines of a political theory that prioritizes new social needs that reflect the relational character of the human person.

This book, one of the earliest by Christos Yannaras, was first published in 1967 and has become a contemporary classic. Yannaras begins by outlining Heidegger's analysis of the fate of western metaphysics, which ends, he argues, in a nihilistic atheism. Yannaras's response is largely to accept Heidegger's analysis, but to argue that, although it applies to the western tradition of what Heidegger calls "onto theology" (which regards God as a 'being', even if the highest), it does not take account of the Orthodox tradition of apophatic theology, of which Dionysius the Areopagite is a pre-eminent example. A God 'beyond being' escapes the criticism of Heidegger, and provides an alternative to Heidegger's nihilistic conclusion.