Intellectual Tensions: Theology’s Endorsement Versus Philosophical Dissent

In the rapid confrontation of the era, a dangerous duality of intellectual currents emerged. On one hand, systematic and institutionalized theology—capable of strengthening authority through organic cooperation with state and church structures—served as an argument in favor of the established order. Such integration facilitated the transmission of spiritual values, uniting society under the patronage of powerful institutions.

On the other hand, philosophers who held significant political influence spared no effort in trying to dismantle the traditional foundations of the state. Their radical ideas, which fundamentally reimagined the social order, were perceived as a challenge to the well-established system and could lead to unpredictable consequences for society as a whole. The fierce conflict between supported theological views and bold, revolutionary philosophical postulates underlined the differences in priorities and methods for reinforcing the state.

Ultimately, when the legitimacy of power was rooted in time-tested institutions and the synthesis of spiritual guidance with state policy, the innovative and sometimes destabilizing ideas of philosophers sparked concerns for societal stability. This tense struggle of worldviews reflected the delicate balance between tradition and innovation, where each trend sought to secure its place in history amid constant challenges and changes.

Why did theology receive support when philosophers, who wielded political power, were often persecuted?
Theology received support because it seamlessly integrated into the existing power system and cooperated with state and church institutions, while philosophers in positions of power frequently promoted ideas that undermined established forms of state organization.

On one hand, theology was viewed as a means of conveying God's word and reinforcing society's foundations through teachings aligned with both church and state. This is confirmed by the following statement:
"The theology of Leontius, as expected, received strong support from Emperor Justinian and sympathy within ecclesiastical circles. Its greatest endorsement came from the decisions of the Fifth Ecumenical Council..." (source: link ). Such support shows that theological ideas were used to create a common cultural and ideological foundation that not only spared the existing order but actually strengthened it.

On the other hand, philosophers often advanced theoretical constructs that disrupted the traditional and natural forms of governmental organization. Their ideas were seen as threats to public order and stability. This is reflected in the following quote:
"Philosophers who, through their theories, destroyed the natural forms of states, plus utopians and fanatics who, enacting in life the fantastical notions of philosophers, brought calamities upon their nations. No one ever inflicted as much suffering upon their people as the philosophers and social utopians who believed in the possibility of fundamentally reshaping life according to their social prescriptions." (source: link ).

Thus, in circumstances where the support for theology ensured the legitimacy of power through established institutions, while philosophers advocating revolutionary ideas could undermine the foundations of state and social stability, a clear distinction emerged: theology was supported, whereas philosophers were often persecuted for their destabilizing ideas.

Supporting citation(s):
"The theology of Leontius, as expected, received strong support from Emperor Justinian and sympathy within ecclesiastical circles. Its greatest endorsement came from the decisions of the Fifth Ecumenical Council..." (source: link )
"Philosophers who, through their theories, destroyed the natural forms of states, plus utopians and fanatics who, enacting in life the fantastical notions of philosophers, brought calamities upon their nations. No one ever inflicted as much suffering upon their people as the philosophers and social utopians who believed in the possibility of fundamentally reshaping life according to their social prescriptions." (source: link )