Communion: Unity-in-Distinction
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 окт 2024
- Establishing "communal logic," refuting naturalism, critiquing Platonism, and ekstatically communing! Watch the full episode HERE: www.youtube.co...
LORE Coffee Roasters:
loreroasters.c...
(THE Orthodox Christian specialty coffee company)
ORTHODOX DEPOT (affordable crosses, icons, apparel, and more!): orthodoxdepot....
🎙️TELOSBOUND DISCORD: / discord
✍️SUBSTACK: substack.com/@...
Reading List: shorturl.at/lmMU0
😇 PATREON: / telosbound
(includes many perks such as exclusive content, Q&A access, monthly calls with Trey, and more!)
👼 TREY’s book “Aphesis: The Impossibility of Subjectivity”: amzn.to/3hzxZAR
❤️ JOIN this channel to get access to perks:
/ @telosbound
☦️ CHECK out Seraphim Hamilton’s course on refuting Protestantism using the Bible alone: shorturl.at/dAO48
---------------------------
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 #conservative #politicaltheory #sigma #staniloae #trinity
Fascinating discussion! I’ve been working on this kind of thing for the past while.. I have a question: are you saying that all that gives The Father his identity (as The Father) is his not-being-Christ and his not-being-Spirit? If so, this purely negative, dialectical conception of identity seems to me to (1) presuppose the three terms’ minimal difference from one another and (2) to just be an inflated way of making the self-referential formulation A=A (whereby A=notB and B=notA), a formulation that, as you said, says nothing. Am I thinking about this the right way?
Perfect timing. I am almost done listening to Jake the Muslim Metaphysician's critique of Dr. Beau Branson and their discussion on the monarchia of the Father. This is a topic that I am really interested in but have no philosophical background, so digesting this information takes time for me. Thanks for the Florovsky book recommendation.
can you do a video on the seven bowls of wrath in revelation?
The relative is in communion with the Absolute, by necessity. This is what Christianity is showing symbolically, in its own particular way. Other religions have their own ways of showing the same concept l, suited to other peoples with other sensibilities. All true religion is about reconciling the relative with the Absolute; the many with the One.
Exactly. That there is no separation between the one and the many. This is precisely what the Trinity is also describing.
9:50 - Ok. I object to this conception of Platonism. What you're describing is not Platonism but a quasi-strawman of it. You must understand that once there is discourse about the One, anything said about it is intrinsically metaphorical, because the One is beyond everything. And Iamblichus AFAIK says that during henosis, the person merely "forgets" himself and is "left behind". So there is no reason to believe that Orthodox theosis is somehow incompatible with Neoplatonism. And Neoplatonism does not deny unity entering into distinction. Plotinus makes it very, very clear that Nous is unity-in-distinction. Since reality is simply Nous, therefore to be something is to also be a unity-in-distinction for Neoplatonists. In fact the entire point of Neoplatonism is that there is no real hard dualism between subject and object. So it makes little sense to say that Neoplatonists "hard-privilege" the universal over the particular, because that would be to imply hard dualism. The Neoplatonists must have viewed the universal and particular being mutually interior to at least a certain extent.
The trinity isn't even intended to conceptually define the One in EO so I don't even know why they bother.
"Nous is unity-in-distinction...reality is simply Nous." Exactly. Nous is akin to the transcendent Father and Son the immanent cosmos. God is known in the cosmic Son by the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is a description of the inherent unity of the one and the many - that there is no ontological separation between subject and object.
Yes the One is beyond everything, including a text message. The point ultimately is, I think, whether the One is a person. Of course not. So neoplatonism is a complex way to avoid the need for the Godhead to be Personal. If you don’t want your God to be per personal, platonism is the best answer. Of course if He is personal…..😮
@@johnsalamito6212
You need to tell me if you distinguish between God and Godhead. Some Christians (I know Meister Eckhart certainly did) do make the distinction between God and Godhead. You cannot use the two terms interchangeably like you did.
@@dunadan7136 I meant Godhead as the Trinitarian concept of three separate persons coequal in one one undivided being. A mystery. God I used more loosely as to be whatever it is at the top of the ontology, which for me is the Godhead but for some someone else it may be Unitarian (eg Allah)
Your framing of the dichotomy as unity/distinction is misleading. The the dichotomy platonist speak of is simplicity/complexity. Trinitarian view attributes complexity to the one and you haven't showed how that works.
Not sold on the idea that A=A presupposes A=/=B
I'm guessing he means that if you say A is A, then A is not not-A. Which makes sense.
If A can be both A and not-A, then perception particular things becomes impossible. Or we would literally have to have some sort of split consciousness. Or there is some sort of entirely unprovable alternative reality or something.
@@dunadan7136
I'm not convinced that A=A presupposes the idea of not-A.
@@dubbelkastrull
It has to, though. If not, how does perception work?
@@dunadan7136
I mean, we probably presuppose not-A when we think about or write A=A. But that's kind of our "fault". I'm not convinced that the proposition or sentence "A=A" necessarily entails or presupposes the idea of not-A.
@@dubbelkastrull
Ok, then A can be both A and not-A. But why then in perception do we see A as A and B as B and not A as B or B as A? What you're suggesting makes no sense and would render perception of anything impossible, since anything can be anything. Everything might as well just be meaningless noise.