The 'abstract' and the 'concrete' in Orthodoxy

[Rick H.]

Dear Monachos Discussion Community:

Since someone was brave enough to send Fr. Dcn. Matthew a PM today asking "why it really matters" in the Corinthians 15 thread. I feel empowered to ask about this notion that the theoretical is a negative thing in Orthodoxy. I think Owen writes about the primacy of the concrete as much as any, but this seems to be a popular sentiment here on monachos.

In my mind, both a practical approach and a theoretical approach are employed in The Holy Writ. In this sense one is not excluded or frowned upon.

As we may consider the writings of John and Paul for example we see that John used very *simple* words to convey very deep truths about communion with the Trinity as well as the life in Christ. Paul at times could not have been more practical and plain spoken in his communication of the Truth of the Life "in Christ;" but, at other times as Peter has said, 'Paul's letters are hard to understand.'

I guess it depends on how one defines the words 'abstract' and 'concrete;' however, as it relates to the Holy Trinity, Theosis, The Life in Christ . . . what is meant with the suggestion that the concrete holds the place of primacy over the abstract in either 'theology in the first person or our communiction and disscussion here?


This is something that I have been wondering about for some time now and am wondering if any Bears of large or small brains could bring me up to speed please.

In Christ,
Rick

[D. W. Dickens]

I don't think that "hard to understand" means "abstract".

Abstract by definition doesn't exist. It's a model. I suppose some abstract thinking is useful even in extremely rigorous real world applications like engineering, but those models are always based in reality as we know it. And are as detailed as we can describe.

I personally reject abstractions whenever possible. Sometimes it's just too difficulty to communicate without them, but being a sort of intellectual shorthand they also create a potential for oversimplification.

If I were to have a motto (my son just joined Cub Scouts so I'm thinking in words like "motto") it would be, "Reject Hypotheticals." It seems to me that many of the ugliest, spiritually destructive conversations have been steeped in a strong brew of the hypothetical and assumptive.

There's a sort of Orthodox Existentialism (forgive the abuse of the term). Orthodoxy exists and is concerned with existence. Apophatic theology is the Church's best attempt to deal with the fact that God is beyond concepts like existence so if we want to deal with anything about God other than that which is revealed by Him we have to negate something to positive effect, as they say.

Part of the reason I initially investigated Orthodoxy was its unflinching willingness to deal with reality and our limited knowledge of it. Some Orthodox can get as sentimental as any other person, but apart from that I remain perpetually impressed by the Saints and the hierarchy of the Church (even when I disagree with them).

[Rick H.]

Hi DW,

It sounds like your mind might be going to things that are speculative (as in speculative theology) or hypothetical (as in the dreaded 'what if' scenerio). I don't think that is what is being addressed with other comments here about the concrete and the abstract or theorectical; but, maybe it is. Here's one definition of "abstract":


Main Entry: abstract ab-!strakt !ab-+strakt
Pronunciation: \ ab-ˈstrakt, ˈab-ˌ \
Function: adjective
Etymology: Medieval Latin abstractus, from Latin, past participle of abstrahere to drag away, from abs-, ab- + trahere to pull, draw
Date: 14th century
Results

1 a. 1 a disassociated from any specific instance - an abstract entity b. b difficult to understand : abstruse - abstract problems c. c insufficiently factual : formal - possessed only an abstract right

2. 2 expressing a quality apart from an object - the word poem is concrete, poetry is abstract

3 a. 3 a dealing with a subject in its abstract aspects : theoretical - abstract science b. b impersonal detached - the abstract compassion of a surgeon

Honestly, I'm not really sure what is being said about the practical over the theoretical, and possibly there is another aspect to this (pastoral?) that is included . . . but, I hope to understand not so much a definition of a word but instead, what this sentiment is about that seems to be a prevailing attitude here, on monachos.

In Christ,
Rick

PS I don't think I have asked my question very well, but hopefully one of the veterans of monachos will be able to see what I am trying to ask.

I like the above definition #2: the word poem is concrete, poetry is abstract . . . maybe this is it. I wonder if the subject of universals and particulars is being addressed here in the past?

[D. W. Dickens]

I'm definitely trying to draw this towards a discussion of universals. I've had several over the last few months and have been encouraged by the results. "Difficult to understand" is certainly a dictionary-acceptable definition of abstract. However that definition isn't the antonym of concrete. When someone uses that pair they aren't implying definition 1.b.

I really like digging into all this stuff about how our abstractions mislead us and while I don't think it needs to be dogma or anything, it is good practice to stick to discussing "what is".

I've heard it said, "The Truth isn't an idea, it's a person, Christ."

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Rick, dear others,

Thank you for raising some interesting questions.

There is a difference here between how certain words tend to be used in modern English, and how their root Greek forms are used by the Fathers. I am thinking here particularly of 'theoretical', which in your own usage is contrasted with 'concrete', making 'theoretical' a kind of synonym for 'abstract'. This surely the Fathers wouldn't support.

In patristic usage, 'theoretical' is directly related to its root, theoria, or theological vision. Theoretical knowledge is thus the true, purified knowledge of one who sees the genuine nature of things; it is the fruit of the highest ascetical condition. It is grounded in the concrete engagement with reality as-it-is; but by divine illumination and a purity of vision, sees the full reality of what lies before it, in its fullest dimensions.

In modern English usage, 'theoretical' tends to be used quite differently. It is taken to mean 'unreal', or 'based on ideas, not necessarily on reality'. But a better term for this is speculative knowledge. This is sometimes - but not always - related to abstract knowledge, which we might define as a knowledge of 'general principles' divorced from specific concrete expamples.

In Orthodox life, the basic form of knowledge is the concrete. Speculative knowledge is dangerous (since it is, at its base, an act of will and thus deeply conditioned by one's own will, one's own sin); and abstract knowledge is, by its very nature, generalised out of concrete reality, rather than grounded in it.

In ascetical terms, speculative and abstract reasoning are both guarded against, because both move the intellect further into the realm of the distorted will - either by imagining/speculating on a reality other than what is provided and revealed by God (thus promoting a self-will); or by taking what is provided, and abstracting it to something more amorphous that can be systametised and analysed 'better' in that abstraction (again, a manifestation of will).

In pastoral terms, speculative and abstract reasoning are dangerous, because they promote the whims of the mind and will above the concrete engagement with reality. One finds - with surprising regularity, and swiftness - that they lead to definitions of reality that are really expressions of one's own wills, desires, flaws, etc.

Orthodoxy does not work by systems of universals. It does not teach an abstract knowledge. It is the engagement of man with God in His creation, which, if purified, leads to theoria and true vision.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Owen Jones]

While Acts is not the last word on the subject, it is evidence of the power of God to dramatically change lives and the direction of lives, and to bring about a change in our very being. Sometimes this is done willingly, and sometimes this is done in a way that appears to be against our will. There is no theoretical justification for any of what happens in Acts, really. It is a report of what happens when the Trinitarian energies of God are at work.

Why are you fighting against me, Jesus asks Paul? Don't you realize that this is a "no-win" situation for you? When Paul stops resisting, that's when things heat up. The entirety of our faith, the theory and the practice of it, is designed to overcome our resistance so that we can become open receptacles of God's power, so that He can act in and through us, and our actions are His actions, our thoughts His thoughts, our virtues are His virtues. We are nothing in and of ourselves, and when left to our own devices we live in a state of blindness.

This is what our ascetical doctrine is all about. It is expressed and exercised mostly in and through our services of worship, that are drawn from the monastic experience. This worship discipline is what protects us from false theories and teachings and ways of applying the Gospel that are misplaced. The theory behind it is actually anterior to the practice of it, which is why reading a bunch of theological books is probably not such a good thing for most of us. So that in the practice of our faith, especially through the ascetical disciplines, our minds and bodies are healed and we are able to begin to see things as they really are, instead of the false picture that is erected by the body/mind complex to reality, as a result of our resistance. Our intellectual rationalizations more often than not get in the way. Are actually part and parcel of our resistance.

So, while I doubt most Protestants would disagree with the proposition that it is all about God's power working in our lives, there is a distortion because of the lack of any ascetical focus, a lack of focus on the virtues, since this is equated with what they call "works righteousness." The Protestants claim that you can "know" God, that in fact this is the purpose of our religion, to know God. But this is false. We cannot know God, but we can do His will and in so doing we are changed. But if we are called to be like Christ, then we must live like He lived, including His ascetical practices. Likewise, knowing what ORthodoxy is all about, what is it, what does it mean, what does it teach, is best learned through worship, not from reading books or trying to intellectually grasp what it's all about. In Orthodoxy, right action leads to right thinking, not the other way around. Trying to get an intellectual grasp of the "subject" of Orthodoxy is more often than not just another example of self-will, of resistance to God's power.

I don't know much about this from experience. I've just heard people talking about it and I'm reporting what they say, for anyone who might be interested.