Orontes said:
Science does not refer to the simple ability to do a thing, but to the theoretical rubric via Descartes, and to a lesser extent Francis Bacon, that allowed men to quantify and qualify the phenomenal world.
You are of course correct. However, this is a modern view of science that has a distinct purpose, of finding truth about the natural world.
Science as demonstrated by the West, not as a philosophy, but as technological innovation, discoveries and practical use, is not distinctly more prominent than the East before the Ottoman occupation (in fact I argue it was the Eastern side that was clearly ahead). And after the Ottoman occupation (which is a whole discussion in itself) Russia did not forster the Industrial Revolution (a good thing according to me remember) but lacked absolutely nothing as compared to the West as far as science goes. You are aware after all of the fruitful additions to modern science by Russian scientists in the 20th century.
In any case, the distinct element of rationality as the pillar of scientific thought has its roots in the West (esp. during the Enlightenment period where Aristotle was held in high regard again for his "orthologism" (a major distinction between him and Plato of course), his rationality in his thought.
But Aristotle of course never mixed rationality with the divine and the workings of a soul like a rational atheist does (this has of course nothing to do with you, I am using extremes)...
The contrary views on technological innovation and popular sovereignty are noted. Did you hold these ideas before you became Orthodox or after? Do you think your religiosity informed these views?
I am Greek, cradle Orthodox and of course your question is noted as valid, as I come from a very religious family (theosevoumeni-god respectful, as I prefer to say it).
To answer it as best as I can, my disdain for the Industrial Revolution was first rationally conceived and then put into an Orthodox perspective. Subconsciously of course nobody can tell (I reject that an outsider can really tell though). I climbed a sociological ladder to reach to my conclusion on the conscious level.
As for my political views as a Greek I had the priviledge of being able to study democracy and popular sovereignty vs aristocracy vs monarchy or any unitarian system. But the major factor is the conclusion that absolutely NO realistic political system will work, and everything is either a utopia or a naive catastrope or both.
Again the second has been reinforced by my Orthodox belief as I grow older and hopefully wiser...
In regards to the chronology of the Industrial Revolution: I will point out that the Third Rome was never under Ottoman authority. Further, even within the confines of Islam I don't recall any prohibitions against Christians studying. If that is correct, then the political dynamic cannot act as an excuse for lack of innovation from the Christian quarter. This becomes even more obvious in the later stages of the Ottoman Empire (say post 1798) when the Turks actively began to attempt to imitate/replicate Western European knowledge.
I already offered my answer as far as Russia goes.
As for the wider area of Greece I am surprised because the 400 years of Ottoman occupation are rife with many examples of repression of studies and of course religious practice. Closing of schools and churches was a common theme in many areas during the occupation. The distinct exception being the thinkers and philosophers of Constantinople, the remaining aristocracy of the greek population there.
Rationality cannot determine truth?
One at a time because those are big questions to put all together.
No, rationality cannot determine the full truth. It cannot determine Truth. Because Truth is divine ("I am the Way, Life and the Truth".) Truth is infinite unlike humans and their rationality. It can approach truth, it can reveal parts of it, it can help in *understanding* truth but never ever will it determine and put boundaries to it. At best (which I instinctively reject but thats beside the point) it can put boundaries to the natural world. Never will it be the whole for God is found beyond the natural world (in fact He is its Creator), and of course no one person can *understand* the whole Truth through a finite medium.
You need something infinite for this Truth. God's Grace, the Holy Spirit, given and received in Love (Agape). Rationality at this point can only tilt its head in obedience and accept Revealed Truth, understood to be True not *just* by the brain but through the whole Being.
Does this mean faith can determine truth? If so, are you arguing faith is a knowledge schema?
Faith with Love. See St. Paul, Corinthians I. Faith alone is nothing without Love. Without Love faith cannot reach the Truth. Faith without Love is a hollow shell nowhere near the Truth. Only together can they determine Truth. And I argue that rationality should be subdued to these two, else it is absolutely sterile and incapable of reaching Truth.
Is faith a knowledge schema? Never thought about that, cant see why that is important but as a first thought I say no, I cant see how faith can be defined in a schema. (I am using the greek philosophical idea of the schema in my answer, perhaps thats the problem). The best I can do is say that faith is a pre-requisite to reach full Knowledge. I suck at big words, keep that in mind.
If not, then neither reason nor faith can determine truth? Is this your view? How would you relate this back to my initial question about Eastern Orthodox notions vis-a-vis rationality
Alone, no. I certainly say that they cannot determine Truth. As for the Eastern Orthodox notion vis-a-vis with rationality I see one huge thing against a much smaller one. Cant tell you anything more specific than that.
This is as a side note to my question but: why do you associate St. Augustine with Aristotelianism given he was far more influenced by Neo-Platonism? What are you thinking of?
Aristotle's orthologism. The foundation of determinism. This happens because this other thing happens. The relation between cause and effect.
Rationality is a fine toold for observing this but this may easily lead to scholasticism (as it did with St. Augustine and especially with those who attached themselves to that characteristic of his) and missing the forest by observing too much the leaf (I know there is a similar expression in English with a finger and the moon, but I prefer the leaf/forest analogy much better-the leaf is a part of the forest after all).
I am of course not referring to St. Augustine's perspective of the soul, which indeed is closer to Neo-Platonism than anything else.
I don't understand you comments on reason and nihilism. In the two and a half millennia of rational thought nihilism has played a very small part.
Two and a haf millenia? Its my turn to say I dont understand what you mean by two and a half millenia of rational thought. Did you mean centuries? If not, I need clarification. If yes, I see a major influence in human behaviour and beliefs and I confess I find myself in agreement with Fr. Rose. With one clarification:
Thanks for the Fr. Rose reference. I don't think the fellow understood Nietzsche
I think he did understand him fine, at least he understands Nietzche exactly the same way I understand Nietzche before reading Fr. Rose. But the clarification is this: I separate the person Nietzche from the ideas of Nietzche. For example I am aware that many of his words were directly linked with his personal life, his psychological problems or situations.
However, if Zarathustra for example was written by an anonymous fellow we knew nothing about, we have to look at the idea on itself. And I argue that the nihilism in Nietzche's writings is a nihilism born out of glorification of reason and rationality. Coupled of course with a huge, larger-than-life ego. Fr. Rose's analysis is arguing about that sort of nihilism, even if you and I (well, I dont) disagree if that is really what Nietzche was all about.
Certainly in my eyes, the various forms of this "Rose-nihilism" are accurate descriptions of the error in identifying rationality and its findings as Truth, instead of parts of the Truth or small truths about the natural world (trivial really compared to God)
His notion, Nihilism is the root of the Modern age (which he seems to take as the 20th Century) is similarly problematic as only one intellectual movement could possibly fit this description. Most of his analysis seems far too agenda ridden, but thanks for the reference.
I think he sees Modern Age as the more abstract age that Rationality became the forerunner of intelligent thought. Becomes more defined as we approach our days historically. There is of course not one intellectual movement that represents the nihilistic thought (as at least described by Fr. Rose and I agree it's accurate) of there is no absolute truth, there is no god, god is dead.
Take a look at society and see how many believe in God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (which today is one and the same-even on a popular unconscious level reaching every level of society, art, science, politics, entertainment etc). Very specifically so for the Western World, which is what I (and to an extent Fr. Rose) argue.
Perhaps I am mistaken in some things I write but I am fairly ok with my view on rationality and Truth, which is the main thing
edit: quotes