Western philosophy

[Benjamin Ekman]

Dear monachos forum,

I know you are having a discussion on philosophy in the "Intellect, Questioning, and Orthodoxy" thread. But I thought I would ask my question in a separate place.

I am a freshman at Wheaton college. I have come here to America from Sweden. I do not identufy myself as an american fundamentalist evangelical. So dont expect me to try to covertly ask question that will confirm my prejudices on Orthodoxy. I have a very high regard for Othodox tradition and theology.

I have just started to study a course in Philosophy. We will be studying Plato, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, Hume, Mill and Nietzche. As you can see they are Western philosophers. Plato being the only greek. In my study of the Fathers I have found that in some areas they have a very high respect for Platonic philosphy (spiritual/ascetical theology, metaphysics) but in some areas they do not accept platonic ideas e.g. prexistens of souls and pre-cosmic fall etc. When I read the Platonic dialouges and esp. the Republic what should I learn? What would the Fathers have pointed me towards in theese texts? Do you have any specific reading recommendations (in the Fathers or in modern authors)?

I can remember redaing a message by Owen Jones about the development of Western Philosophy. He talked about the disadvantages of Cartesian/Descartes philosophy? What in Descartes philosophy does not go well with Orthodox/patristic theology/philosophy?
Thank you for any help in this matter.

In Christ,

Benjamin Ekman

[Owen Jones]

Dear Benjamin,

Most academic treatments of philosophy like you have described treat it historically over a time line, culminating in Sarte. Which is really the death or negation of philosophy. The situation is truly hopeless.

I would merely suggest that you read Plato, et al for yourself, and struggle with the questions yourself. There really is no substitute for that.

As is evident in our discussions here, there really are no self-evident answers to your questions. They are part and parcel of your own search.

[Justin]

To Young Men On The Right Use Of Greek Literature (http://www.geocities.com/orthodoxtreasure/basilgreek.html) by Saint Basil the Great might be of some use.

When reading Augustine, I'd suggest also reading The Commonitory (http://www.geocities.com/orthodoxtreasure/vincentcomm.html) by Saint Vincent of Lerins and The Institutes and Conferences (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-11/TOC.htm) of Saint John Cassian. I've found Saint John Cassian to be especially good at articulating the concept of synergy (that fine line between faith, grace, works, free-will, effort, destiny, etc.)

I've been told that it's good to start with Nietzsche's later works first, and then to work your way backwards if you wish to read more. I've only read two books of his (both of which were written later in his life), so I've not tested this advice, but there it is (for what it's worth).

If you have the time, I'd also suggest reading G.K. Chesterton. He's closer in thought to Orthodox Christians than most of the philosophers you'll be studying, and he's always a pleasure to read.

[M A Jackson-Roberts]

With all due deference to Owen's advice (post no. 671), Benjamin, I would advise using a good modern translation of Plato if you are not able to tackle the dialogues in the original Greek. The Benjamin Jowett translations that I used as an undergraduate many years ago were very hard work, as I recall. This interposed an unnecessary barrier to full and immediate understanding for a young student impatient to learn wisdom, but Plato certainly repays persistence. Penguin editions are good; can they be obtained in the US?

Having studied political philosophy, ethics, logic and metaphysics in the past I am now reading mainstream philosophy to keep up with a friend who is doing a part time degree in the subject and to engage in Socratic debate with him. But I do not feel qualified to engage in this with the mega brain power that is regularly displayed on this website.

the seeker
the seeker

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Benjamin,

I suggest Plato's Timaeus along with Basil the Great's Hexamaeron. I also suggest Justin Martyr's First Apology, especially chapter 20 where he says,


If, therefore, on some points we teach the same things as the poets and philosophers whom you honor, and on other points are fuller and more divine in our treaching, and if we alone afford proof of what we assert, why are we unjustly hated more than all others? For while we say that all things have been produced and arranged into a world by God, we shall seem to utter the doctrine of Plato; and while we say that there will be a burning up of all, we shall seem to utter doctrine of the Stoics...

And chapter 59 where he says,


And that you may learn that it was from our teachers--we mean the account given through the prophets--that Plato borrowed his statment that God, having altered matter which was shapeless, made the world, hear the very words spoken through Moses, who, as above shown, was the first prophet, and of greater antiquity than the Greek writers... (going on to quote from Genesis 1)

I am certain that Justin got this from Philo.

And Justin's Second Apology, chapter 10:


And those who by human birth were more ancient than Christ, when they attempted to consider and prove things by reason, were brought before tribunals as impious persons and busybodies. And Socrates, who was more zealous in this direction than all of them, was accused of the very same crimes as ourselves. For they said that he was introducing new divinities, and did not consider those to be gods whom the state recognixed. But he cast out from the state both Homer Republic10] and the rest of the poets, and taught men to reject the wicked demons and those who did the things which the poets related; and he exhorted them to become acquainted with the God who was to them unknown, by means of the investigation of reason saying, "That it is neither easy to find the Father and Maker of all, nor, having found Him, is it safe to declare Him to all."[Timaeus--but the eds. of Plato we have say "possible" rather than "safe"]

Also, most important IMO is Justin's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, you will especially need the first eight chapters.

I also suggest, if you have time, to look into Philo of Alexandria, the first century AD Hellenistic philosopher. Paulist Press has put out a remarkable series on western spirituallity of which Philo of Alexandria, The Conteplative Life, The Giants, and Selections is an excellent representative. I believe his reorganization of the Stoic doctrine of the Logos was precursor to St. John the Theologian's inspired use of the term for the Second Person of the Trinity (Jn. 1:1 etc.)

Finally, I know you didn't ask for contemporary authors, but I think Jaroslav Pelikan's book on Hellinism (the title of which excapes me mjust now) will have some helpfull connections for you regarding the Capadocian Fathers (among whom was Basil the Great) and their use, particularly of Plato.

Yours,

Richard

P.s., I can't find it right now, but I think that Justin Martyr would (did) say that the pre-Christian era philosophers had some light, even if not as much as the OT prophets, but that no matter, following the light is the experience of whatever Grace God gives. When I find a quotation to this effect, I will get back to you.

[Richard Leigh]

Benjamin,

Just to add to Justin K's wise words, with Augustine read Maximos the Confessor.

Also, I strongly suggest you go to the website romanity.org (http://www.romanity.org)

Richard

[Owen Jones]

It's interesting that you refer to romanity.org. Romanides' stuff is interesting, and I think that he is right in focusing on the real purpose of the Church as a hospital for sick souls. However, there is a hidden agenda behind his work, and enough quirkiness to invite caution.

And he makes the typical mistake of categorizing Plato. If one were to read John Wild's "Plato's Theory of Man" it would become readily apparent that Plato's idea of man is that of a disordered psyche in need of treatment -- which is really not unlike Romanite's understanding of the Church's theology.

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Owen, and Benjamin,

My reference to romanity had to do with the Augustine issue, not Plato. I can see I should have specified.

Sorry,

Richard

[Benjamin Ekman]

Thank you everyone for the tips. Sofar we have read Euthyphro and are on our way through Phaedo. This latter work I find very interesting. I can see many similarities to the theology of the Fathers in it. Especially ascetic theology, how the philosopher seek "pure knowledge". It sounds very much like the "pure prayer" of Orthodox monasticism and Evagrian spirituality.

Another thing that interests me is the concept of nous. Plato uses this term in Phaedo for the intellectual facuty of reason or the mind. I know the Fathers used this term for "the eye of the soul". This is a very important concept.

Today I read 1 Cor 14:14 and it says: "14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit (pneuma) prays, but my mind (nous) is unfruitful."

Metropolitan Vlachos in "The Illness and cure of the soul" says that hesychast monks who have the gift of unceasing prayer of the heart are actually praying in tounges. But here it seems as though prayer in the SPirit has nothing to do with the nous.

How do we explain this diffrentiation between pneuma and nous? Maybe we are not to expect a fully developed concept of nous in Paul. How does the patristic anthropology of nous work together with the biblical and pauline use of spirit and soul?

This is a problem for me and I've been thinking about it all day. I want to follow the fathers but I would like to know how they viewed the anthropological statements in Paul.

In Christ,
Benjamin Ekman

[Tim Kerry]

Dear Benjamin,

If you are interested in a discussion of the relationship of ancient Greek philosophy (specifically, Plato and Aristotle) to Orthodox theology, you might look at John Romanides' book, "Ancestral Sin," and Philip Sherrard's "The Greek East and the Latin West." The first book is Mr. Romanides' Doctoral thesis and offers footnotes and a fairly clear discussion of the differences between ancient Greek metaphysical and ontological doctrines,(for instance,the Forms and the claim the world was not created ex nihilo)and Christian ontological and metaphysical notions. Sherrard's book, especially the first two chapters, is more philosophical in nature in describing how Orthodoxy, although not an extension of Platonism, shares a great deal more in common with Plato than with Aristotle. Werner Jaeger also wrote a book discussing the links between the early Church Fathers and Hellenic culture, but his conclusions tend to suggest that what resulted was not a "Christianization of Hellenism" but the "Hellenisation of Christianity." As far as academic philosophy and Orthodoxy go, a very wide gulf exists, so it seems to me, between an essentially naturalistic, pragmatic view of the world that one finds in modern Anglo-American analytic philosophy departments and Orthodox theology. Mr. Jones above has said that most academic treatments of philosophy end with Sartre. At least in America, where what is called "Continental Philosophy -- i.e., Existentialism, Deconstructionism, Phenomenology, and Post-Modernism -- is not terribly respected, the history of philosophy tends to culminate in people such as Quine, Davidson, Putnam, Wittgenstein, Rawls, and a host of people associated with the Philosophy of Mind or Language. This "style" of philosophy places great empahses on quantificational logic, science, and the analysis of language. It is, however, almost without exception, indifferent to the history of philosophy and rather ignorant of it. Additionally, it tends to be rather dry and driven (at least in my graduate school experience) by failed scientists and mathematicians who philosophize in service to a naturalistic idol of science where all things are supposed to be eventually explained by our most robust theories. If you are interested in the history and development of philosophy, you might be disappointed in the current state of academic offerings. If you want a "crash course" in where analytic philosophy leads, something by Richard Rorty such as "Philosphy and the Mirror of Nature," or "Contingency,Irony, and Solidarity" to see its rather lamentable state. A nice clear summary of the dead end of modern philosophy is offered by Stanley Grenz in a book titled, "A Primer on Postmodernism." The latter book was written by a Protestant professor of Philosophy and while his outlook is not Orthodox in the full sense of the term, his criticisms are incisive and an excellent starting point in the critique of what amounts to the rise of nihilism.

If you read German you might also consult your library to see if they have any of Kuno Fischer's books on the History of Philosophy (his Kant and Hegel being the best) or Ueberweg's History of Philosophy. As far as Plato and Aristotle go, G.E.L Owen wrote a number of excellent things on both; Etienne Gilson, a Catholic scholar, has a number of interesting books that address ontological and metaphysical issues associated with theological thinking about God, which often address Platonic and Aristotlean issues as a result; Terence Irwin has written a good book discussing Plato's moral theory; and Mary Gill has written an interesting study on Aristolte's notion of substance. There are, of course, thousands of books on all of these issues but, if you want to sort of bring yourself "up to speed," as it were, in regard to where some of these discussions are today, any of these books will do so.

Lastly, in regard to the Rationalists and the Enlightenment philosophers that came after, much of what shaped even Descartes' thinking was premised on debates that emerged out of Scholasticism and ancient Greek philosophy (in fact, you could read Descartes' Second Meditation as essentially an attempt to refute Aristotle's notion of substance). So, there is a huge amount of material which may not be of much benefit for what you are interested in. Good luck. I converted to Orthodoxy while finishing my graduate degree in Philosophy. At the time, in the face of the Truth of the Church, I felt like I had essentially filled my head with useless information in studying philosophy; however, it does provide one with an idea of the "false directions" and "false doctrines" that plague modernity and this may not be a bad thing to be aware of in the end.

Regards,

Timothy

[Tim Kerry]

A quick comment --

Constantine Cavarnos visited the Holy Mountain in the early 1950s and wrote what is essentially a travelogue of his visit, a book titled, "Anchored in God." In th chapter on the monastery of Vatopedi, he reports that one of the churches there had a mural with Plato and Aristotle holding scrolls with words not taken from anything either had actually written but something suggesting that they each had some incomplete but vague sense of the True God. In the mural, neither one of them has halos, however. According to Cavarnos, the murals were added sometime in the mid 1800s.

Regards,

Timothy

[Richard McBride]

monochos: DCOTRINE & THEOLOGY: Western Philosophy

Blessed of the Lord, Timothy

What a delightful summary of philosophy you have given us. In spite of your conversion to Orthodoxy (for which we thank the Lord + ), I hope that even in your corrected state you do not let that bar you from offering more of your philosohical observations -- of course, nothing else being excluded either.

Since I am on a roll at the moment, I shall also ask if Father John (Romanides) were not already ordained when he presented his dissertation? If so, than you should correct his title from Mr to Father. But forgive me, I he were not.

Also, I wonder if sometime you might expand on the "naturalistic, pragmatic view of the world" in which we find "modern Anglo-American analytic philosophy departments and Orthodox theology".

This is truly a pregnant comment. Particularly, I am wondering about "naturalistic"? Is this in the sense of G.E. Moore's condemnation of it? Or, might it somehow (though probably not) engage the strange views of such as Paley, in his old "Natural Theology" thesis? [I should enjoy the latter, simply for its entertaining arguments; but I doubt you intended anything like it.]

As for "pragmatic views of the world", I find that philosophers lead the pack in spinning a loose notion of it -- very much in line with the stuff of common sense (like naive realism). I take Pragmatism to be limited by the views of Peirce and James (its initiators), then Dewey, and others, mostly of Harvard. I say this because its difficult-to-pin down boundary takes in a very interesting form of aesthetic.

So, I take it you were the product of one of the "analytic philosophy departments", and I am always admiring of the potential of that regimen for cutting the fluff out of one's all too fluffy ideas. But how do you account for "Orthodoxy theology" under this heading?

I truly hope you are willing to comment on these matters, as a start. But if this all seems too foolish, coming as it does from a non-pnilosopher -- then I understand.

In the meantime, I pray that you increase in the wisdom of Orthodoxy, Timothy.

richard mcb

[Tim Kerry]

Dear Richard,

Thank you for your kind words of encouragement in the Faith.

Actually, after I wrote my earlier note, I had a feeling that maybe Fr. John Romanides was a priest. I checked the back of the book, which refers to him as “Fr. John Romanides,” as well as “Doctor Romanides.” I had forgotten that he was a priest but would assume his thesis was written while he was a laymen but I cannot be sure of that claim.

The notion of “Naturalism,” at least in contemporary discussions within analytic philosophy, is not akin to William Paley’s notion from his “Natural Theology.” In fact, the argument from Design and teleological arguments which claim to see purposiveness in the natural order, are considered to be precisely the sorts of metaphysically baseless arguments analytic philosophy dismisses. “Naturalism” in analytic philosophy refers, speaking generally, to the belief that only physical “stuff” that can be empirically quantified matters for the construction of theoretical explanations of the world. So, what this means in discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Mind, for example, is the claim that there is only the brain and its physical states; there is no “ghost in the machine,” no extensionless, immaterial thing called “the mind” or “the soul.” Since analytic philosophy began to rise in prominence with the rise of Positivism in the 1920s, its approach to epistemology and metaphysics were guided by the belief that philosophy should attempt to determine the conditions necessary for the development of robust scientific theories. As such, any belief in older metaphysical systems that ascribe to notions involving transcendent realities or mind-independent truths were thought to be empirically suspect and useless. This was accompanied by an increasing interest in mathematical logic after the work of Georg Cantor, Gottlieb Frege, Betrand Russell, and Kurt Godel. Logic, as exemplified perhaps most famously in Wittgenstein’s “Tractatus Logico Philosophicus,” was believed to be capable of clarifying concepts and setting limits as to what could and could not be claimed in regard to the use of words and the connection of them to ideas and reality. All of this occurred at a time when the physical sciences were making great strides as well: physics, biology, neuroscience, etc. This created a metaphysical bias for what is essentially empiricism: philosophical theory was supposed to avoid postulating or arguing for explanations of the world that depended on realities that could not be empirically tested for, quantified, or explained. Pragmatism, starting with Pierce and James and culminating with people like Quine and Rorty, takes the naturalistic or empiricist principle but stops short of claiming there is any “true” or “ultimate” way the world is: theories are not true with a capital “T” but rather useful constructs, developed through testing and verification, that enable us to successfully predict what will happen in the world given a set of circumstances. For the pragmatist, there is no metaphysical Truth, metaphysical or moral. Instead, there are only ways of thinking that we find to be beneficial, given our interests for whatever purpose we may have in mind.

The description above is very rough and incomplete but this should provide some sense of where analytic philosophy is headed. There are, of course, analytic philosophers such as William Alston and Alvin Plantiga, that use the logical tools of analytic philosophy to defend various Christian ideas. However, these discussions are often problems for the West and are descendents of Scholastic arguments regarding Aquinas’ Five Ways for the existence of God; possible worlds semantics to defend God’s benevolence against the presence of evil in the world (theodicy); or arguments pertaining to the compatibility of God’s foreknowledge with our freewill. The problem as I see it, however, is that many of these issues are not problems for Orthodoxy. Orthodox theology does not confuse the Divine Energies with the Divine Essence which means that Orthodoxy does not view God’s benevolence, omnipotence, foreknowledge, etc, as part of His Essence but rather His Energies. But, these issues would be a matter for discussion in another format. Sorry for the confusion –

All the best,

Timothy

[Richard McBride]

monochos: Western Philosophy: "analytical philosophy"

Blessed of the Lord, Timothy

Again, you produce a lovely conspectus, in a very short time. Thank you.

I recall conversations with three different 'analytical' types (one was an avowed pragmatist, who, as you mentioned, uses analytical form to filter his pragmatic broadcast. In each of these philosophers, as with your messages, I have been impressed with an ability to examine the normal garbage of speech (a speech, any speech), to sort out certain hierarchies of meaning, and then whittle it down to a meaningful package.

Also, in those three persons I was impressed with much less of what I should call, the hangover from the binges of Positivism (and all its offspring), and much more with a concern for clear thinking. That is, I was delighted with a decreasing emphasis upon any pre-packaged agenda (such as we find in most postmodern arguments, in almost all structuralist arguments, or in the prejudices which accompanied the linguistic mindset leading up to 70's). Probably much of what I deplored was the use which Western Marxism made of linguistic philosophies immediately before and following the War (while Soviet Marxists officially deplored semiotics and all the rest, Western Marxism, realizing the sterility of Socialist Realism (ala the Frankfurt School, etc.), seemed most happy to jump aboard the linguistic bandwagon....).

Which is to say, somewhat to the contrary of what you have said, Timothy, that I have been impressed by a willingness among analytical philosophical types to downplay their natural linguistic prejudices (all of which emerged out of Positivism), and to play up the power of a purely analytical philosophical regimen. The result seems to be a regimen which then has a chance to organize (while abstaining from) all the prejudiced agenda's which it has foresworn. In this way, an analytical philosophical format would be a pure form without its own content. Thus bereft of its old anti-metaphysical and pro-materialist prejudices, it might just as well serve as the vehicle for arguments over transcendence as over original sin.

Particularly, I am interested in organizing the great garbage heap of beauty-statements into something of a coherent Divine Aesthetic. Unhappily, that bus doesn't seem to stop here.
.............................................

As for Father John (Romanides), I looked quickly to see if there were an internet biography on him, and I found none. My vague memory was that he was priested before receiving his Ph.D. (I guess it was in philosophy; perhaps I am wrong about that too?)

In any event, having run across these URL's to Father John's thinking, I include them in this post for all who are interested. The first one is to his and Metropolitan Vlacos' site, Romity. (Can anyone tell me, is my memory off, or was not Father John the only contributor to "Romity" homepage, say, about a decade ago?) : The rest are interestsing references to his wide ranging and facile mind:


http://www.philthompson.net/pages/library/eastwest.html
The Fundamental Difference Between the East and West
Professor John Romanides

http://www.romanity.org/cont.htm
31 Romanides articles

http://www.romanity.org/mir/me02en.htm
FABRICATIONS ABOUT PROF JOHN S. ROMANIDES
by CAPUCHINO PRIEST IANNI SPITERI
[Priest Ianni is advisor to the Pope on Orthodox matters; one of those matters seems to be Father John as a thorn in the RC side.]

http://orlapubs.com/AR/R52.html
PROPHET OF ROMAN [i.e. Byzantine] ORTHODOXY: THE THEOLOGY
OF JOHN ROMANIDES by Andrew J. Sopko (Synaxis Press, 1998)

http://www.um-islam.nm.ru/romanidis.htm
Islamic Universalism and the Constitution of Medina Fr. John S. Romanides

http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/
Jewish Roots of Eastern Christian Mysticism
Twenty Eight different themes; from a seminar by Alexander Golitzin

[John Curtis Dunn]

I would suggest reading whatever you find by Xavier Zubiri.

john

[Norman Turner]

John Curtis Dunn,

Thank you for the alert to the works of Xavier Zubiri. I found a fairly extensive listing of his published works on the Library of = Congress Online Catalog:-

= http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=3Dzubiri+xavier&S= (http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=3Dzubiri%2Bxavier&S=) earch_Code=3DNAME_&PID=3D26218&SEQ=3D20030909103802&CNT=3D25&HIST=3D1

Norm Turner

[Jurretta J. Heckscher]

Dear Norm Turner and other discussion participants:

I am afraid that the URL Norm provided is not permanent. Your best bet is to go to the Library of Congress catalog, http://catalog.loc.gov/, choose Basic Search, enter

zubiri, xavier

in the search box, and select Author/Creator Browse. That will lead you to a list of his works in the Library of Congress.

Yours in Christ,

--Jurretta

[John Curtis Dunn]

I am afraid that the URL Norm provided is not permanent. Your best bet is to go to the Library of Congress catalog, http://catalog.loc.gov/, choose Basic Search, enter

zubiri, xavier
--------

Or simply visit http://www.zubiri.org/

[Benjamin Ekman]

Hello everyone,

Thanks for all the replies above. We finished our treatment of Plato the other week. We read among other things Phaedo and the Republic. I really enjoyed it.

After Plato we made a BIG jump to Aquinas. We are reading parts of his Summa contra Gentiles. It is dealing with natural theology. In what I just read Aquinas is arguing that God is the Unmoved Mover, immutable etc. He stresses that God has no potency in his essence. He is pure act. How does Orthodoxy view this. If God is not only essence but energies does he have potency? What I read felt unOrthodox, but I'd aprecite help with seeing why that is. Are the energies motions? And did they exist as actions prior to creation etc. Are they a part of the immanent Trinity or do we talk about them economically?

Aquinas also believes that Gods being is his essence. If I remember correctly. This seems to be troubling too. What happens to the hypostases? Are they above the essence?
Theese are horribly big questions for a sinful college student to deal with. Hope you can help.

In Christ,

Benjamin EKman

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Benjamin,

I think Aquinas, being Latin, reading a Latin translation of an Arabic translation of Aristotle will have no idea about the uncreated energies of God. All the unorthodoxy you are getting from him, IMO is stemming from this.

Also, you are correct, he (and all the West) equates essence with being (which in Greek is distinguished between ousia and ontos). Thus I think the problems between Latin Catholicity and Greek Othodoxy has a linguistically base.

Richard

[Owen Jones]

But you have not actually explained anything, Richard. Can you?

[Moses Anthony]

Dear Benjamin,

I don't often make two posts in one evening.

beware, with the volume of work available, you could drown in information overload. Be very selective.

With that said, I direct you to the thread on this site Intellect, Questioning , and Orthodoxy. A number of url's/web addresses are offered if you browse through the voluminous posts.

[Richard Leigh]

Explained anything? Hmmm.

What I was taught in philosophy was that it took of from two points: Plato (ultimately "eastern") and Aristotle (western). I have since begun to learn is that that is a very misleading dichotomy and in fact that Aristotle is not so far from Plato as all that.

Next comes the dichotomization that Augustine "christianized Plato" while Aquinas "Christianized Aristotle." Not so sure about this any more.

One thing Im still sure of though is that Aquinas is Augustinian regarding hid Trinitarian doctrine, and I am learning that since Augustine's approach to the Trinity is to begin with the Unity, he comes out with an "impersonal Trinity."

I don't know what Aquinas means by "potential," aand I would have taken it for "energies" but am pretty sure this would be incorrect.

Richard,

P.s. Short answer, "No."

[Owen Jones]

Richard,

I was actually wondering about ousia vs ontos. Being and essence and energies. I still don't understand all of that.

As a sidebar, my seminary prof. claimed that Aquinas had to square everything he wrote with Dionysius.

[Fr Averky]

DEar members,

I am very happy to see this thread, because even though I studied philosphy and the history of philosophy when at St. John's University, Collegeville as a seminarian, I was so filled with my ever-growing desire to leave Catholicism and perhaps even the Church (Christianity), I missed classes, or sat like a log, my mind and heart filled with total despair.

I have never had a philosophical mind, and I view life and my faith very simply. I am going to print out all the postings on this thread, read them, and seek out some of the books that have been mentioned. Thank you Richard, Owen, and others for giving me an opportunity, to fill in a very important blank spot in my education.

As I said recently, God sends His blessings and much Grace to Monachos.

Fr. A.

[Richard Leigh]

Owen,

Dioysius the Aeropagite? Very interesting.

I've recently learned that distinction (I haven't learned the distinction, only that there is one, I stand at a door about to open in fear and trepedation of the light that may assail me to blindness coming through that door when it opens!) on a website devoted to Greek language in general. <http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/default.asp> at Greek lesson 2. Wonderful! I'll have to go over it some more go digest it.

As you probably know Luther hated Dionysius (it would be because it would be too ethereal for him, too vague and therefor unsure), and also that he hated Aristotle (had actually lectured on Nicomachian Ethics, and found it atrocious! I wish we had his lecture notes!). I seriously believe that with regard to philosophy, all Luther wanted to do was address it patristically. But this isn't helping our friend Benjamin, so, I appologize for this Benjamin and hope you get more help.

Richard

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Fr. A,

Father bless (though you have much already!)

It looks to me like philosophy is what we get when we apply our God given faculties to the problems of our existence.

The first question that comes up, it appears, is "What do we know?" and its corrolary, "How do we know it?" And naturally we started from what comes to us through our senses, all of them.
After that comes the critical process of examining how accurate at bringing us true information our senses really are, not to mention what becomes of the "insensible," how do we know anythinhg about those? And so on it goes. Fortuneately for us we have a revealed religion. That is, it was revealed immediately to somebody (Moses and\or one of the prophets etc) and delivered by word of mouth and'or jot of pen from generation to generation. Of course, that will be one remove from the origninal Source, and so what we as a later generation receive is "by tradition", yet we do believe it, and we are taught that that beliefe of Faith we have by direct revelation (actually, we Lutherans balk at the use of the term "indirect" but that's another story I can explain later, it all has to do with what we mean by what we say.) The point is that even for our generation, we have a religion which is revealed to us By God, that is he gives us faith to beleive the word he has "Traditioned" or passed on to us through our spiritual forebears. This of course included the Scriptures, and my Lutheran co-rligionists will want me to have made a stronger case for the written Word which I would have given had I been addressing them.

Kissing your right hand,

Richard

[away]

The warmth and light of the suns rays are its energies. The sun its self is not its energies, what the sun is is its essence, its energies tell us what its essence is like (warm and light), but they do not tell us what it is.

Our thoughts are like the energies of our nous. that is why what comes out of us, thoughts and words, reveal our essence, what we have become.

[Waldemar]

"I don't know anything of metaphysical language. What we say about Christ is experiential."

+ Metropolitan Anthony of Sorouzh

Memory Eternal!

[Waldemar]

The Fathers did not understand theology as a theoretical or speculative science, but as a positive science in all respects. This is why the patristic understanding of Biblical inspiration is similar to the inspiration of writings in the field of the positive sciences.

Scientific manuals are inspired by the observations of specialists. For example, the astronomer records what he observes by means of the instruments at his disposal. Because of his training in the use of his instruments, he is inspired by the heavenly bodies, and sees things invisible to the naked eye. The same is true of all the positive sciences. However, books about science can never replace scientific observations. These writings are not the observations themselves, but about these observations.

This holds true even when photographic and acoustical equipment is used. This equipment does not replace observations, but simply aids in the observations and their recordings. Scientists cannot be replaced by the books they write, nor by the instruments they invent and use.

The same is true of the Orthodox understanding of the Bible and the writings of the Fathers. Neither the Bible nor the writings of the Fathers are revelation or the word of God. They are about the revelation and about the word of God.

Revelation is the appearance of God to the prophets, apostles, and saints. The Bible and the writings of the Fathers are about these appearances, but not the appearances themselves. This is why it is the prophet, apostle, and saint who sees God, and not those who simply read about their experiences of glorification. It is obvious that neither a book about glorification nor one who reads such a book can never replace the prophet, apostle, or saint who has the experience of glorification.

The writings of scientists are accompanied by a tradition of interpretation, headed by successor scientists, who, by training and experience, know what their colleagues mean by the language used, and how to repeat the observations described. So it is in the Bible and the writings of the Fathers. Only those who have the same experience of glorification as their prophetic, apostolic, and patristic predecessors can understand what the Biblical and Patristic writings are saying about glorification and the spiritual stages leading to it. Those who have reached glorification know how they were guided there, as well as how to guide others, and they are the guarantors of the transmission of this same tradition.

From:

EMPIRICAL THEOLOGY VERSUS SPECULATIVE THEOLOGY

by Father John Romanides

Source URL:

http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.02. htm#s9

[Waldemar]

More from Fr. John Romanides:

This is the heart of the Orthodox understanding of tradition and apostolic succession which sets it apart from the Latin and Protestant traditions, both of which stem from the theology of the Franks.

Following Augustine, the Franks identified revelation with the Bible and believed that Christ gave the Church the Holy Spirit as a guide to its correct understanding. This would be similar to claiming that the books about biology were revealed by microbes and cells without the biologists having seen them with the microscope, and that these same microbes and cells inspire future teachers to correctly understand these books without the use of the microscope.

And, indeed, the Franks believed that the prophets and apostles did not see God himself, except possibly with the exception of Moses and Paul. What the prophets and apostles allegedly did see and hear were phantasmic symbols of God, whose purpose was to pass on concepts about God to human reason. Whereas these symbols passed into and out of existence, the human nature of Christ is a permanent reality and the best conveyor of concepts about God.

One does not, therefore, need telescopes, microscopes, or a vision of God, but rather, concepts about invisible reality, which human reason is by nature allegedly capable of understanding.

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Benjamin,

More on Waldemar's post #22: find Basic Writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, Pegis, Anton, ed. New York, Random House, 1944, vol. 1, "Introduction." On p. xxxvii the editor says,


Hitherto Christian thinkers had sought wisdom and understanding in a truly breathless way: in the exstatic vision of God. But confronted by Greek reason, they began to discover another understanding and another wisdom; andalongside the contemplative and the mystic there bgan to emerge within Christioan thought the theologian and the philosopher, even as alongside the monastery there emerged theuniversity. In truth, this is the moment when the Fathers are joined by the Schoolmen.

This is all Western Chistianity in the 13th century. Let me point out for all and sundery that it was against the "Schoolmen" that one of the impeti of the Reformation was aimed.

Pegis' major point in his introduction though is that Aquinas et al. developed therir approaches as a result of the newly imported translations of some of the Greek philosophers, notably Plato and ARistotle (but not all of their works) and they had to "deal with them." I wonder how the Christian East had been "dealing with them" all that time (from centuries 4-13)?

Richard

[Cyril Guerette]

Excellent. In returning here I am again astounded by both the level and range of the discussion.

A few things:

The influence of Plato on Aquinas is too often overlooked. Indeed, following the Radical Orthodox thinkers, I see "participation" as the guiding ontological principle of his thinking. I also think the "empirical" knowledge referred to above was also affirmed and pursued vigourously by him. I think the Greek influence is also neglected as Dionysius was indeed a major source in his theology, and Augustine (and with him Platonism) was THE Theologian to his mind. The influence of Boethius is often forgotten as well on the Latin side, he who transmitted the only part of Aristotle to the west for hundreds of years, who seems to rely on Plato even more than his pupil, and who wanted to find a way to reconcile them to each other. As a response to Richard Leigh's points above, we must be sure to remember that Aquinas himself received the Beatific Vision and abandoned his Summa Theologica, although not repudiating it altogether. He in no way wished to make speculative knowledge destroy practical knowledge, and in the end it seems the opposite occured.

The above discussion of the distinction between both "energy" and "essence" in the Fathers as well as "mind" and "spirit" in Paul intrigues me. Could it be explained further for the unknowlegeable? Would it not be more likely to say that thoughts or mind (nous) are the energy of the spirit (pneuma)? Clarification here would be very helpful in my coming to grips with a truly Orthodox ontology.

I find it very intriguing that that which seems to appeal to me most in Augustine and Aquinas is that which they share with the Greek Fathers.

Finally, the discussion of the analytic philosophy tradition my Richard McBridge above was very refreshing, and I too see a positive value in their method, as well as some of the insights of the linguistic stream, while obviously refusing their reductionistic tendancies.