Magnificent-I have not read Pavel Florensky, but goodness he sounds like my beloved David Hume, who argued against “autonomous rationality” for reasons that sounds incredibly similar to Florensky. For Hume, rationality must ultimately defer to “common life” or it will turn into a source of totalitarian and totalizing destruction, similar to how Florensky describes pure skepticism as leading to hell. Donald Livingston is magnificent on Hume, and you should see the new book Samuel Barnes put out, "The Iconoclast," which is exactly about this subject. There’s clearly a lot of overlap, so I’ll do my best to become more familiar with Florensky. As always, excellent work!
@@telosbound That’s so wonderful! No doubt your discussion with Barnes will be magnificent: he actually just visited the farm, and we had a divine time. I think you’ll like “The Iconoclast” very much, and I’ll certainly read “The Pillar and Ground of the Truth.” I see the great James Kourtides has also reviewed Florensky, and I enjoyed his videos as well. Thank you for bringing his work to my attention! Also, I currently have “Ainsi bas la vida” on loop…
I know nothing about philosophy, but I know something about the Greek language. I don't know if epoche is a technical term in philosophy, but I think that the right rendering of the concept of " suspension of all judgement", using a Greek term, would be Apoche.
Thank you for this video and others like it! The subject matter was also touched upon from a buddhist perspective (albeit with references to Heidegger and Hegel, Nietzsche and Sartre, Eckhart and saint Francis...) by Nishitani in Religion & Nothingness. The nothingness described is a sorry place to be stuck in indeed.
Awesome. Didn't Florensky write a bunch on sophiology as well, or was that only Soloviev/Bulgakov? Would be interested in hearing your take on sophiology
Yeah, Florensky has some writings on sophiology. Much less than bulgakov - sophiology was much more accidental to Florensky compared to how foundational it was to Bulgakov.
Skepticism self destructs and is untenable from what I have seen. Its like painting yourself into a corner and stuck. The really smart people realize we have an heart and mind; and find the balance. Aristotle was bang on; man is a social animal. We need to relate to 'others', the world, and the Other. I have also noticed you cannot squash reality into head; its to big for your head... a promethean task.
Pavel Florensky will be Canonized as surely as the Iconoclastic heresy was a mistake, Florensky is a Saint and will be recognized as such and his critics will be shamed like Haman.
Great video; just one note: I am not sure where you got this 'consistent skeptic' term from but I'd suggest against its use. A skeptic needn't be consistent. I (a closeted skeptic) am usually aware of the divide between 'objective reality' and 'subjective reality' but as long as I withhold judgement on the structure of subjective reality, I am at peace. In other words, I *accept* that life is subjectivity. I don't *value* that acceptance. Finally, I must ask you to excuse my inarticulation. Edit: And concerning the consistent skeptic's championing of the two propositions: I must say it makes no sense. The skeptic does not uphold anything. It's a lack of a claim, not an active claim itself
i would argue that the goal of a true or (in this case) "consistent" skeptic is to no longer be skeptic. Remaining in the constant circular agony of constant skepticism without the desire of destination will create staleness. or as Florensky puts it, "An infinitely excruciating torment, an agony of the sprirt. So I disagree with your notion, "a skeptic needn't be consistent", if the skeptic was truly not then it would refer back to my previous statement of spiritual agony.
That intro was so good. And Florensky’s explication of skepticism is very valuable
Wow, Florensky gave words to what I was agonizing over when I was first considering Christianity. Love the connection with The Scream. Great video!
@@telosbound so so true
We’re so back
Magnificent-I have not read Pavel Florensky, but goodness he sounds like my beloved David Hume, who argued against “autonomous rationality” for reasons that sounds incredibly similar to Florensky. For Hume, rationality must ultimately defer to “common life” or it will turn into a source of totalitarian and totalizing destruction, similar to how Florensky describes pure skepticism as leading to hell. Donald Livingston is magnificent on Hume, and you should see the new book Samuel Barnes put out, "The Iconoclast," which is exactly about this subject. There’s clearly a lot of overlap, so I’ll do my best to become more familiar with Florensky. As always, excellent work!
@@telosbound That’s so wonderful! No doubt your discussion with Barnes will be magnificent: he actually just visited the farm, and we had a divine time. I think you’ll like “The Iconoclast” very much, and I’ll certainly read “The Pillar and Ground of the Truth.” I see the great James Kourtides has also reviewed Florensky, and I enjoyed his videos as well. Thank you for bringing his work to my attention! Also, I currently have “Ainsi bas la vida” on loop…
I know nothing about philosophy, but I know something about the Greek language. I don't know if epoche is a technical term in philosophy, but I think that the right rendering of the concept of " suspension of all judgement", using a Greek term, would be Apoche.
Excellent video! Btw, I seriously can't wait until the release of the second edition of your book, Aphesis.
Pavel florensky, Ora pro nobis
Awesome visuals dude 🤙🏼
Searched for Gold, found diamonds.
Very wise. IMO, this would be very good extension/addition of/to the Manion Paper
Thank you for this video and others like it! The subject matter was also touched upon from a buddhist perspective (albeit with references to Heidegger and Hegel, Nietzsche and Sartre, Eckhart and saint Francis...) by Nishitani in Religion & Nothingness. The nothingness described is a sorry place to be stuck in indeed.
Looks like a good vid excited to watch
A-are you the… the real Alex Jones?
@@Wesenschau yes…
@@zachtupper3934 we are so back…
Tight video love the music at the beginning 👌🏻
amazing content as always brother!
I keep coming back to this just for that intro
Great video, snd fantastic intro
Let’s gooo
That's a very interesting theology of gehenna. Can I get some recommendations please on other theological descriptions of hell?
BASED
Awesome.
Didn't Florensky write a bunch on sophiology as well, or was that only Soloviev/Bulgakov? Would be interested in hearing your take on sophiology
Yeah, Florensky has some writings on sophiology. Much less than bulgakov - sophiology was much more accidental to Florensky compared to how foundational it was to Bulgakov.
I always get these guys mixed up
Interesting video trey
Skepticism self destructs and is untenable from what I have seen. Its like painting yourself into a corner and stuck. The really smart people realize we have an heart and mind; and find the balance. Aristotle was bang on; man is a social animal. We need to relate to 'others', the world, and the Other. I have also noticed you cannot squash reality into head; its to big for your head... a promethean task.
interesting background
Great vid. Need sophiaology content soon!! 🤧
Bigggg W
Also, appreciate the Chopin
Pavel Florensky will be Canonized as surely as the Iconoclastic heresy was a mistake, Florensky is a Saint and will be recognized as such and his critics will be shamed like Haman.
@@telosbound start with prayer.
Good video. "I lack a belief in God but can't say it's true God doesn't exist" 😂 so many conversations with atheists on RUclips
Is the background AI generated art?
This ontology is very reminiscent of Nagarjuna!
Great video; just one note: I am not sure where you got this 'consistent skeptic' term from but I'd suggest against its use. A skeptic needn't be consistent. I (a closeted skeptic) am usually aware of the divide between 'objective reality' and 'subjective reality' but as long as I withhold judgement on the structure of subjective reality, I am at peace. In other words, I *accept* that life is subjectivity. I don't *value* that acceptance. Finally, I must ask you to excuse my inarticulation.
Edit: And concerning the consistent skeptic's championing of the two propositions: I must say it makes no sense. The skeptic does not uphold anything. It's a lack of a claim, not an active claim itself
i would argue that the goal of a true or (in this case) "consistent" skeptic is to no longer be skeptic. Remaining in the constant circular agony of constant skepticism without the desire of destination will create staleness. or as Florensky puts it, "An infinitely excruciating torment, an agony of the sprirt. So I disagree with your notion, "a skeptic needn't be consistent", if the skeptic was truly not then it would refer back to my previous statement of spiritual agony.
Bad day to be a plan-non-truster.
What is there is no subject at all?