Platonism and Christianity - Ep.5 (w/
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 08. 2024
- SUBSCRIBE TO @ericorwoll and @understandingplato1134 and @KeithWoods
In the fifth episode of The Baptizing Philosophy Podcast, Eric and Trey talk about Platonism and how it both differs and overlaps with Orthodox Christian theology.
DISCORD: / discord
PATREON / telosbound
TREY’s book “Aphesis: The Impossibility of Subjectivity”: amzn.to/3hzxZAR
THE BAPTIZING PHILOSOPHY PODCAST: anchor.fm/telo...
THEOSBOUND: / theosbound
HASHTAGS:
#philosophy #theology #metaphysics #ontology #orthodox #christianity #orthodoxchristianity #communion #church #jesus #christ #catholic #bible #hegel #negation #dialectics #epistemology #psychoanalysis #logic #ethics #theory #socialtheory #apologetics #God #aphesis #subjectivity #paradox #contradiction #reading #books #intellectual #politics #conservative #politicaltheory #sigma #staniloae #trinity #holyspirit #florovsky #creation #genesis #plato #aristotle.
Nietzsche fan vs Plato reader: • Nietzsche fan vs Plato...
Preface to Aphesis: The Impossibility of Subjectivity
Aphesis is a philosophical journey through hell, ending with a brief-perhaps even miraculous-glimpse of salvation. Many readers of the first edition were quick to note that the transition from the atheistic philosophy of subjectivity to the meditations on Christian theology were sudden and did not naturally follow from the reasoning of the previous chapters, but is this not the very way in which the grace of God operates? It is often when the sinner is most lost in this world-totally unconcerned with anything beyond themselves-that the Spirit of God descends into their hearts and shatters all of their prior assumptions and misconceptions.
I found Christ through this book. When I wrote the first word of Aphesis in the summer of 2019, I was a staunch (Nietzschean) atheist, and I wrote the final chapter as a catechumen in the Orthodox Church. When I say that I found Christ through this book, I mean it in the most literal sense. My “moment of conversion” occurred while I was shooting hoops in my driveway, in deep and troubled thought over my inability to complete the final chapter of this book, one which would overcome, or at least provide a reconciliation with, the “impossibilities of subjectivity.” And suddenly, as if a veil had been lifted from my eyes, I perceived the profound truth that the Christian story of salvation provides a “narrow path” out of every paradox and contradiction I found myself lost in. I dropped the ball, and the coincidences I perceived “made me suddenly stand still.”
I then messaged my cousin, my best friend and brother in Christ, to tell him the good news. Over the next two years we discovered Orthodox Christianity. Orthodox Christian theology-which has its foundation in the ontology of communion-posits that the being of beings is found in the other, in communion with the other. Communion is not mere “relating” to the other as if there were an underlying self-relation that only secondarily “relates” to another self-relating being. The radicality of the communal ontology consists of its absolute opposition to the notion of self-relation, which it banishes into the outer darkness. Pure self-relation is not merely something to be avoided-it is strictly impossible. The source of all being, being as such, is the communion between the Persons of the Holy Trinity: “Nothing in existence is conceivable in itself, as an individual, such as the substance of Aristotle, since even God exists thanks to an event of communion.”
The ontology of communion posits that one’s being is not found in oneself but in and through the other. One reconciles with and finds oneself in Christ. Simply put, the life of the individual is not found “in itself,” but in God:
"Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day [...] This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever." (John 6:53-57)
The true radicality of Christ’s “hard teaching” is often lost in the English translation. The Greek term translated as “eat” is closer to “munch” or “consume.” The communal ontology sees being as the consumption of the other (which is another reason why the communal ontology is not merely “relational”). But this “consumption” is not selfish devouring and the destruction of otherness, but a full reception of the other’s freely given love, made possible through the simultaneous giving of oneself. If one remains enclosed within oneself, one cannot commune; it is only in abandoning one’s self-imprisonment through self-sacrifice that one becomes open to communal life.
Shows Plato readers as giga chads immediately cuts to two super nerds
Telosbound is changing the game 😎
The game ain’t ready for this 🔥🔥
This was a great conversation and I really appreciate yours and Aarvoll's channels. I think the reason Christianity finally triumphed over paganism is because of this personhood of an 'anthropomorphic' God that men could believe in, which the anthropomorphic Olympic gods could no longer do. In this way it is the continuation of Greek 'paideia', or genius of philosophy which was its universalism combined with the revealed God of the prophets. For more on this subject I would highly recommend the work of Werner Jaeger "Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture", "Early Christianity and Greek Paideia", and "The theology of the early Greek philosophers".
It would be good to have Aarvoll on our team. Praying for the guy. ☦
There is a set of new conversations between John Vervaeke and an Orthodox theologian that would enlighten a lot of this interesting conversation.
Was just saying that :)
Great exchange of ideas. I especially enjoyed the respect each of you gave each other so that the back and forth was not impeded by personal agendas. A few comments: I think Synesius of Cyrene may be the early Bishop who argued in favor of Platonic ideas such as the eternity of the world, that Eric refers to. // There is a split in Platonism between what I call the 'contemplatives' (e.g. Plotinus and Porphyry), and the 'theurgists' (e.g. Iamblichus and Proclus). Some understand Platonism from the Plotinian perspective and find Proclus unnecessarily complicated and obscure. I get the impression that Eric sees Plotinus as a precursor to Proclus whereas others see Plotinus as the pinnacle and configure Proclus as a falling away from that pinnacle. // I followed with interest the discussion about 'intellect' (nous); some people translate it as 'mind', or 'Mind', in an attempt to avoid the analytic implications of 'intellect'. // Finally, the word 'neoplatonism' first appears in the 17th century among German scholars. Plotinus considered himself a Platonist and nothing else; and that was true for over 1,000 years. Ficino considered Plotinus a Platonist. The term 'neoplatonism', in my opinion, inherently misrepresents the tradition because it implies that Plotinus, et al, were doing something different from Plato which is not how they saw themselves. // A deep bow to both of you for such a lucid and thoughtful presentation.
Great discussion!
"Complete" henosis seems to me, at its face, incoherent. To my mind it would require me as a finite individuated nature to "expand" into infinity which is something that couldn't possibly take place. This is why, I think, Saint Gregory of Nyssa speaks of Heaven as *epektasis* - an unceasing stretching out of the soul into a more and more perfect relationship with God.
Indeed it is absurd, even later neoplatonists (not sure if all of them) rejected the idea.
Love these high level theological dialogues. Very dense this one, I might have to give it another watch later.
Off the top of my head, I think both of you guys could benefit from checking out Fr. A.J. Festugière, a Dominican friar who was a scholar of neoplatonism specialising in Proclus. In one of his works Personal Religion Among the Greeks--which I think has an English translation--he talks about the idea of a distinction between what he calls the 'Known God' and the 'Unknown God' among the pagans doctors of antiquity and how that dialectic eventually led to a reconciliation between paganism (which he claims is monotheist at the highest levels) and Christianity. That might be closely related to what you guys are talking about here.
There are also some lectures by Pierre Grimes floating around where he shows that because of the historical misdating of Pseudo-Dionysius, Christian theology derives considerably from platonism and not the other way around as was traditionally thought. That being said, I'm not sure exactly how credible Grimes is considered by contemporary scholars.
"I'm not gonna disagree with whatever Proclus says at this point."
What does this even mean?
On fire!!!
As far as I know we don't have any official published work by Aristotle available to us. It was lost in the hellenistic period. What survived were essentially his text notes for his students, but his writing intended to be read by an audience is all gone.
Also, I'd like to see this speak with someone like the bishop Maximos that's recently been featured on John Vervaeke. He'd make an interesting guest for you, despite him being a schismatic.
Great interview.
solid video
16:00
The WHOLE is greater than the sum of its constituent parts AND CONSTITUENT ACTIONS!
- Me
Monism > Trinism
Arianism > Trinitarianism
The One is the principle of individuation-the principle by which anything is one thing-and as such, cannot itself be an individuated thing. The One neither is nor is one. So the One is, first and foremost, the principle by which each God is a self-perfect unity. The Monad is any God, the Dyad is the universal causal power of a God, and the Triad is the resolution of the implicit tension between the Monad and Dyad, which is fundamentally intellectual-this is the creation of Being.
Around the 57 minute mark, when Aarvoll is talking about henosis, I don't think he fully considered the idea of kenosis. He seems to think that the hypostasis (person) is already contained in God fully, but I don't think this is the case. I think that's the potential case that is realized by theosis. We have to take seriously the notion of hell when we talk about this subject. In Matthew 7:23, Christ says to the damned, "I never knew you; depart from Me..." This seems to illustrate this notion of self-limitation, in that we are only hypostatically contained in Christ insomuch as we have voluntary synergized our will with His own in the process of theosis. Those who choose not to love God and others are NOT, in some sense, known by Him, and are thus not "already" contained within the absolute.
EDIT: Looks like Trey basically said this right after I unpaused lol.
That implies Calvinistic pre-election, doesn't it?