[Open] Non-Christian Sticky

Status
Not open for further replies.

silouanathonite

Regular Member
Apr 14, 2006
333
43
45
Dallas
✟8,158.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Politics
US-Republican
You can think of it this way and way correct me if I am wrong anyone. You don't get to know a friend, mother, sister, brother, or person by finding out intellectual information about them. You speak with them, spend time with them, grow with them. Loving someone, wanting to know someone, and being with someone is not always something that you can explain in a rational sense. Doesn't make it irrational either. If you try to know someone scientifically and intellectually, you will truly miss out actually knowing that person. You have to all yourself to be open to what that person might have to offer or what you have to offer them. In God's case, he doesn't need anything, but because of our love, we just do what we can. Again, correct me if I am wrong.

Pray for all...
 
Upvote 0

Xpycoctomos

Well-Known Member
Aug 15, 2004
10,133
679
45
Midwest
✟13,419.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Orontes,

very insightful post above. When the person said that faith is irrational, I don't think she meant to focus on the "irrationality" of faith but rather to highlight and bring up the idea that faith isn't just about reason (or, the rational) because if we stop there then we are simply left with a religion that focuses and is completely tied to Man's knowledge. Some here just said a GREAT line: it's not that it's irrational, its superrational (or supRArational? don't know). The point is that faith HAS TO go beyond reason. That is not to say that our reason is not cultivated to support our faith. We are rational beings, God created us that way so reason should not be shunned. It's just can't be the end-all. I heard an Orthodox speaker say (or a writer write? not sure) that Orthodox (and christians in general) sometimes assume that the reason our minds cannot comprehend God is because of our Fallen nature. While our Fallen nature does inhibit us from doing much in terms of our relationship with God and does make the road a dangerous one to travel (which is why we have Christ to carry us... as long as we let Him), God being incomprehensible is not evidence of a fallen world but rather evidence that God... is God. Even if we had never fallen and lived a perfect existence on Earth, God would still be incomprhensible and so Faith would still be something that is suprarational. it will continue to be so in heaven, even though we are perfected in Christ in Heaven and will be ultimately restored to our intended nature.

Does that make sense?

John.

PS: To all the Mods here. It's really odd because all of your guys' parents called me the other day and told me that this Thread should be a sticky. (shrugs) I don't knwo what that was about but I jsut thought I would mention it. wierd eh....
 
Upvote 0

DonVA

Well-Known Member
May 20, 2006
2,013
97
61
Virginia
Visit site
✟10,207.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Xpycoctomos said:
PS: To all the Mods here. It's really odd because all of your guys' parents called me the other day and told me that this Thread should be a sticky. (shrugs) I don't knwo what that was about but I jsut thought I would mention it. wierd eh....

:clap:
 
Upvote 0

ClementofRome

Spelunking the most ancient caves of Xianity
May 27, 2004
5,001
123
✟5,769.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
DonVA said:
I can't help but notice no one is posting in the existing stickies...

Excellent point Don. I am happy to "sticky" the thread for a trial run if that is what is desired. Do we agree that if the thread gets no regular action as a "sticky" that we unsticky it?

Rob....any opinion?

Clem
 
Upvote 0

Vasileios

Eastern Orthodox Christian
Apr 15, 2006
885
194
46
Crete
✟15,480.00
Country
Greece
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Orontes said:
OK, let me ask about something else. I noted in the CAFE a few posters said faith is irrational.

Let me ask what you think about the following. First let me couch it in these terms: the traditional Fall of Rome and the ensuing Dark Ages occurred in the West, not the East. The East Roman Empire didn't succumb to the Germanic Hordes. All the knowledge of Antiquity was preserved: from Plato, to Aristotle, to Galen, to Ptolemy. Yet, it was in the West that science would develop,
First objection. Science flourished in the Eastern Roman Empire as well. Look at the architecture. The palace of the emperor was filled with mechanical wonders. Medicine and hospitals. Not to mention Art of course.

Did you know that besides the treasures of church music (byzantine chant etc) there are approx. 200,000 works of secular music in the libraries of Mt. Athos and various museums? Unfortunately, only a handful of people are working to interpret the music in modern scores, building the exact organs that were used etc? More than 1100 years of civilization has produced an abundance of culture, including science.

the Industrial Revolution take shape and democracy find a voice.
Well, I'll be the odd one here: I am not sure if the Industrial Revolution was a way forward. Meaning I am not sure it made more people happy. But leaving aside my personal doubts about the Industrial Revolution, you are talking about a phenomenon 200 years old, when the East was under Ottoman occupation.

As for democracy, this I will not refrain from saying. It is a failed system. It only works where all the people are cultured (like in Ancient Greece) or with a common mind based on mutual love (Mt. Athos comes to mind in a sense). Today, there is no such thing as a common mind, and there is definitely no such thing as a cultured people as a whole. Democracy was different in the ancient days (and it still had its pitfalls - see the banishment of Aristides or slavery). Today its a masked form of oppression.

However, all of this is irrelevant. The Eastern Roman Empire was a happier place than the medieval europe of the dark ages because it was culturally centred around the Orthodox Church. The emperor was the keeper of this empire and although many fallible men passed the imperial throne, the empire more or less lasted for 1100+ years, a unique example in human history.

Do you think this may be due to a larger attitude in the Eastern Christian Tradition where rationality and faith are seen as mutually exclusive, as the idea "faith is irrational" or the place of the "holy fool" would suggest? What do you think?

Rationality and faith are not seen as exclusive per se. But rationality is definitely seen as finite and human and thus incapable of reaching the infinite God. It has its place, but not in determining Truth, for Truth is outside the natural world.

Reason is responsible for all the errors in doctrines in the Church imo. Starting from Augustine who overused the Aristotlean way of thinking and then by western theologians who perpetuated his honest mistakes.

Oh...and reason all too easily leads to nihilism. For when you reach the end of reason and finite human knowledge you will either be humbled and say "I can go no further, this is beyond reason" or you will conclude in your ego that there is nothing more out there. Which is exactly what is happening today.

As a side note, I think you will find very interesting the following text by Fr. Seraphim Rose:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/nihilism.html

...somewhere along the way I went off topic but oh well!
I hope I said at least something useful. If anything the article by Fr. Seraphim is very interesting even if it is not directly related to the topic (I think it is though)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Orontes

Master of the Horse
Supporter
Sep 13, 2005
3,031
65
✟48,556.00
Faith
Mormon
Mary of Bethany said:
I sincerely doubt you'll find an Orthodox person to say that the intellect or scientific endeavor isn't avery, very important part of our existence. But we believe that the best ways to know/experience God are not through the intellect, but through the heart.

In Orthodoxy, a theologian is "one who prays", not "one who knows".

What I'm trying to say is we don't think faith is irrational so much as "supra-rational" (is that a word? :) )

Mary

Hello,

Supra-rational would suggest above or beyond reason. If faith or the devotional life is above reason then what place does reason hold for the devotee? Do you think reason is held in less esteem in Eastern Orthodoxy than in the Latin Christian Tradition? If not, then why the qualification supra-rational? If so, do you think this may have contributed to the developmental disparity I pointed to in my initial question?
 
Upvote 0

Orontes

Master of the Horse
Supporter
Sep 13, 2005
3,031
65
✟48,556.00
Faith
Mormon
silouanathonite said:
You can think of it this way and way correct me if I am wrong anyone. You don't get to know a friend, mother, sister, brother, or person by finding out intellectual information about them...If you try to know someone scientifically and intellectually, you will truly miss out actually knowing that person.

Hello,

Do then agree that rationality and faith are mutually exclusive? If not, what are your thoughts about the Holy Fool idea?
 
Upvote 0

Orontes

Master of the Horse
Supporter
Sep 13, 2005
3,031
65
✟48,556.00
Faith
Mormon
Xpycoctomos said:
Some here just said a GREAT line: it's not that it's irrational, its superrational (or supRArational? don't know). The point is that faith HAS TO go beyond reason. That is not to say that our reason is not cultivated to support our faith. We are rational beings, God created us that way so reason should not be shunned.

A few questions: What does it mean: faith has to go beyond reason? Could you flush this out? If God is necessarily incomprehensible then why would men be created as rationally imbued? What would be the point?
 
Upvote 0

Orontes

Master of the Horse
Supporter
Sep 13, 2005
3,031
65
✟48,556.00
Faith
Mormon
Vasileios said:
First objection. Science flourished in the Eastern Roman Empire as well.

Hello,

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.

Well, I'll be the odd one here: I am not sure if the Industrial Revolution was a way forward. Meaning I am not sure it made more people happy. But leaving aside my personal doubts about the Industrial Revolution, you are talking about a phenomenon 200 years old, when the East was under Ottoman occupation.

As for democracy, this I will not refrain from saying. It is a failed system.

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?

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.

Rationality and faith are not seen as exclusive per se. But rationality is definitely seen as finite and human and thus incapable of reaching the infinite God. It has its place, but not in determining Truth, for Truth is outside the natural world.

Rationality cannot determine truth? Does this mean faith can determine truth? If so, are you arguing faith is a knowledge schema? 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

Reason is responsible for all the errors in doctrines in the Church imo. Starting from Augustine who overused the Aristotlean way of thinking and then by western theologians who perpetuated his honest mistakes.

Oh...and reason all too easily leads to nihilism.

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?
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.

Thanks for the Fr. Rose reference. I don't think the fellow understood Nietzsche who he ties to Nihilism. Nietzsche was opposed to nihilistic thought not a proponent. This seems to be the case for many of his references. 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.
 
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,394
5,011
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟432,491.00
Country
Montenegro
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Orontes said:
Hello,

Supra-rational would suggest above or beyond reason. If faith or the devotional life is above reason then what place does reason hold for the devotee? Do you think reason is held in less esteem in Eastern Orthodoxy than in the Latin Christian Tradition? If not, then why the qualification supra-rational? If so, do you think this may have contributed to the developmental disparity I pointed to in my initial question?

(My weak attempt to partly answer that one) Basically, reason is good as far as it goes, but is not required. If it were, only intellectuals could inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. I have read (open to correction here) that some Catholic saints like Thomas Aquinas try to prove everything through reason, leaving no room for mysteries or faith (which seems a lot like gnosticism). Human reason, logically cannot fully grasp that which is infinite. In addition, since faith IS required, that means there has to be a point where you must leave reason behind. So it may well be that we hold reason in a slightly lower place than Catholics, but I'm not at all sure of that.

As to developmental disparity, there is no necessary connection with faith. Most historians feel that has a lot more to do with the fact that Russia and much of Eastern Europe spent 250 years as subjects/slaves of the Golden Horde (Gengis Khan et al) 1230-1380 more or less, while the West was crawling out of the Middle Ages. Oh, and I now totally agree with Vasileios, and I'll go one further. I think the Industrial Revolution was a giant step backward for everybody, but the reasons for thinking so are so complex that it would require a book to explain it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Vasileios

Eastern Orthodox Christian
Apr 15, 2006
885
194
46
Crete
✟15,480.00
Country
Greece
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
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 :p

edit: quotes
 
Upvote 0

Orontes

Master of the Horse
Supporter
Sep 13, 2005
3,031
65
✟48,556.00
Faith
Mormon
rusmeister said:
(My weak attempt to partly answer that one) Basically, reason is good as far as it goes, but is not required. If it were, only intellectuals could inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. I have read (open to correction here) that some Catholic saints like Thomas Aquinas try to prove everything through reason, leaving no room for mysteries or faith (which seems a lot like gnosticism). Human reason, logically cannot fully grasp that which is infinite. In addition, since faith IS required, that means there has to be a point where you must leave reason behind. So it may well be that we hold reason in a slightly lower place than Catholics, but I'm not at all sure of that.

St.Thomas didn't discount faith, but rather held reason was an equally valid mechanic for deriving the true. This would be a marked contrast with how I understand Orthodox views which seem to be along the via negativa model. I don't know of any rival stances in Eastern Orthodoxy unless we go all the way back to say the Cappadocian Fathers perhaps.


As to developmental disparity, there is no necessary connection with faith. Most historians feel that has a lot more to do with the fact that Russia and much of Eastern Europe spent 250 years as subjects/slaves of the Golden Horde (Gengis Khan et al) 1230-1380 more or less, while the West was crawling out of the Middle Ages. Oh, and I now totally agree with Vasileios, and I'll go one further. I think the Industrial Revolution was a giant step backward for everybody, but the reasons for thinking so are so complex that it would require a book to explain it.

Muscovy threw off the Mongol yoke with Ivan the Great (15th Century). Why do you tie that with a Russian failure to be first off the blocks in the Industrial Revolution or in the develpoment of science?

So yourself and Vasileios both reject the Industrial Revolution and see it as a bad thing. That's interesting, I wonder if other Orthodox feel the same.
 
Upvote 0

Orontes

Master of the Horse
Supporter
Sep 13, 2005
3,031
65
✟48,556.00
Faith
Mormon
Sorry for the delay, I got distracted in other threads, alas.

Vasileios said:
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.

This is the standard I'm using and this serves as a significant benchmark between the East and West.

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.

So your hostility to technological innovation isn't tied to your faith then I take it. Rather, you would hold this view irrespective of any connection to Orthodoxy? Would it be fair to say then that other Orthodox around you would completely reject your conclusion? Do you think Orthodox opinion would run the specturm of possibilites or tend toward a particular stance?


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.

Are you an anarchist?

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.

I'm not sure I understand your stance. Are you arguing the development of science and the Industrial Revolution could have and/or would have occurred in the East save for the Muslims?

No, rationality cannot determine the full truth. It cannot determine Truth. Because Truth is divine ("I am the Way, Life and the Truth".)

This will sound abstract, sorry: I note the personification of Truth above and it appears you are saying the "true" is a subset of the "True". Without challenging how that would work: Is it possible to know all the particulars of the subset without knowing the complete or larger set? For example, could I know Athens is the capital of Greece or a bachelor is an unmarried man were true without any affirmation of the True? Could this then be extended to knowing the truth of other particular until there are no more particulars?


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.

OK, so only reason remains as a knowledge schema I take it. Is that right?

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.

Your answer uses the capital "T" for truth which is the personification I assume. Does the same hold for Orthodox notions of lower case truth?

Aristotle's orthologism. The foundation of determinism. This happens because this other thing happens. The relation between cause and effect.

So you would apply this to anyone who accepts causality?

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.

I'm referring to the Rational Tradition from its first steps with the Presocratics to the Present.

I think he did understand him fine...

I have to disagree. Nietzsche explicitly attacked nihilism. He was as hostile to it as he was to metaphysical dogma (whether Hegelian or Christian). This might take us too far off course.

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.

If this is what Rose means then he isn't using a standard definition of Nihilism.

Ahh, the post has gotten too long perhaps, sorry.
 
Upvote 0

Vasileios

Eastern Orthodox Christian
Apr 15, 2006
885
194
46
Crete
✟15,480.00
Country
Greece
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Orontes said:
Sorry for the delay, I got distracted in other threads, alas.
No problem. I am a bit worried about the size of the discussion, so it is better that there is time between posts :p

So your hostility to technological innovation isn't tied to your faith then I take it. Rather, you would hold this view irrespective of any connection to Orthodoxy? Would it be fair to say then that other Orthodox around you would completely reject your conclusion? Do you think Orthodox opinion would run the specturm of possibilites or tend toward a particular stance?
I would hold it today, but like I said I cannot tell you 100% this has nothing to do with Orthodoxy. I know monks in Mt. Athos arent fond of technology and complain about the modern roads appearing (meaning dustroads!) and making everything too easy!

I guess the Orthodox view does not encourage comfort at all, so that is very much tied up with disdain of technology when that works as a means of humanity getting more comfortable. The line of course is blurred between what is actually good for mankind and what is just a new way of doing smth easier. I would further guess that any general disdain for the Industrial Revolution among the Orthodox would have that focus, not science and technology on the whole.

Myself, I have been influenced from many things, I think the beginning was the observation of change in cities and the way of life of huge societies of people. I am not sure it was for the better. I find the way of living in the middle ages cruel but sometimes I find modern New York crueller, an unnatural habitat. Again, this is me. Think Tolkien for example who held that the internal combustion engine was the greatest abomination, that is a similar stance outside of Orthodoxy.

I dont know if I'm making any sense. Its not that I am proposing living like the Amish (nor am I condemning that way of life either), but I do have the sense that we are mostly worse and distracted by the speeding up of the rhythm we live and the de-personalization of human interaction.


Are you an anarchist?
Oh, absolutely not! Anarchy is right up there as the grandest naive utopia, sure recipe to chaos, out there. I simply follow politics and society to have agrip of what is going on but I have absolutely no illusion that there can be a political system that will bring happiness, justice and order to the people. The second is somewhat approachable (order that is) but the first and second are always dependant on things outside a political system.

My personal view is that I have my hopes and source of happiness to the other life and Christ's resurrection. To this life I abide to Ceasar's law and pray that God will watch over his faithful, as the Church prays in every Liturgy. At least thats my goal, even when I fall short of it and get mixed up in political discussions... Then again I dont see the powers that be today to have any interest in God's ways, which is why I have the distinct impression that we are approaching apocalyptic times (sorry for the eschatology but thats really how I feel!)

I'm not sure I understand your stance. Are you arguing the development of science and the Industrial Revolution could have and/or would have occurred in the East save for the Muslims?
Dont know. Its a possibility. My point is I cannot take for granted that the West had a superior mentality towards science. The East for sure didnt go through a phase of consciously taking God out of the equation as irrelevant from science. I am not at all convinced that this turn was for the better in the West.


This will sound abstract, sorry: I note the personification of Truth above and it appears you are saying the "true" is a subset of the "True". Without challenging how that would work: Is it possible to know all the particulars of the subset without knowing the complete or larger set? For example, could I know Athens is the capital of Greece or a bachelor is an unmarried man were true without any affirmation of the True? Could this then be extended to knowing the truth of other particular until there are no more particulars?
I dont see the problem. You can know something to be true (the sky is blue, earth rotates the sun, the gravity laws) but that doesn't mean you know the whole truth, or Truth. The natural world is a subset of the whole Truth, of all reality (in the truest sense!), but every particular knowledge of the natural world still does not give you context, the why, nor how everything came to be, how everything is going to end (the beginning and end of things as Rose puts it). That can only be given by revelation, divine revelation that is, which works both as personified revelation (as in the coming of Christ) and the revelation given to prophets.

Particulars are finite only in the natural world. God is infinite, so there is no way to ever be able to know him wholly as it were, only through partaking in communion with him, becoming joined to him. But this is very much outside the knowledge of reason any more, it is I argue even more true than rationality can ever be.

OK, so only reason remains as a knowledge schema I take it. Is that right?
Dont know. Maybe thats what I'm saying. But I dont see the importance of this question. What are the consequences if that istrue? I am not familiar with the philosophical implications of a knowledge schema.


Your answer uses the capital "T" for truth which is the personification I assume. Does the same hold for Orthodox notions of lower case truth?
Not just personification but also the fullness of Truth. The whole Truth, everything, not just parts of it.
Again vis-a-vis with rationality, the Church is a much greater thing, a carrier of Truth and the means to commune with Truth. Lets just say that I believe the Church offers higher truth than rationality. I dont see them as opposing though, which is what I think you are asking...

So you would apply this to anyone who accepts causality?
More specifically? What did you have in mind? I mention orthologism as a key characteristic (among others) in Aristotle's thought. This particular characteristic is not enough for Truth. Causality in itself, I dont know. I need examples. I am not very good in philosophy (as you may have noticed already).

I'm referring to the Rational Tradition from its first steps with the Presocratics to the Present.
Yes, I see now, but this has no bearing in history. Just because it exists does not mean its the major influence in thought. I would think the vast majority of human history and human thought was not wholly base don rationality, quite the opposite in fact. It is only after the Enlightenment (which I reject btw as a valid name) that reason was esteemed higher and begun to penetrate the human civilization in general. I mean people answered their fundamental questions with truths out of or above reason.

I have to disagree. Nietzsche explicitly attacked nihilism. He was as hostile to it as he was to metaphysical dogma (whether Hegelian or Christian). This might take us too far off course.
That does not mean he did not explicitly express in his books the idea of nihilism. I have objections about Nietzsche himself but this indeed would take us too far off course.

If this is what Rose means then he isn't using a standard definition of Nihilism.
He is very explicit in stating what kind of nihilism he is referring to though. So, there is no way of misunderstanding him. Let aside the fact that describes nihilism as I understand it as well. Anyway, the point was (and I noticed it afterwards) that Rose was referring to the *Revolution* of the Modern Age having its seed in nihilism, not the Modern Age per se.

Ahh, the post has gotten too long perhaps, sorry.
Same here. I need to apologise because you write very lucidly (although in parts I have trouble following your terminology as I am not familiar with these terms in English) and my writing skills are very undisciplined in contrast. Hopefully, you can make some sense.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,394
5,011
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟432,491.00
Country
Montenegro
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Orontes said:
St.Thomas didn't discount faith, but rather held reason was an equally valid mechanic for deriving the true. This would be a marked contrast with how I understand Orthodox views which seem to be along the via negativa model. I don't know of any rival stances in Eastern Orthodoxy unless we go all the way back to say the Cappadocian Fathers perhaps.




Muscovy threw off the Mongol yoke with Ivan the Great (15th Century). Why do you tie that with a Russian failure to be first off the blocks in the Industrial Revolution or in the develpoment of science?

So yourself and Vasileios both reject the Industrial Revolution and see it as a bad thing. That's interesting, I wonder if other Orthodox feel the same.

Uh, that should be soooo obvious I'm not sure how to answer. My best shot - Andrei Rublev (Roo-BLYOV) could not run an Russian Renaissance all by himself. If you're being sat on by slavemasters it's kind of hard to have leisure time to develop various kinds of thought, like literature, art, science, etc. The West had a 200 year or so head start.

I don't know how Orthodox people feel about that. We are, to a certain extent, products of our environment, and many don't realize the extent to which we have become enslaved by machinery and modern technology. I would suggest reading Tolkien, Lewis and Chesterton* to get intelligent Christian views that largely denounce industrialization. In short, I agree with them. But if you've gotten used to (and been enslaved) by the leisure society, it's hard to see it - you have an incentive not to think that.

*Have you read any of Lewis's or Chesterton's apologetic works?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.