Bruh is only 20 but teaching like a professor. Good work my friend. I am new to the Orthodox faith (just baptized last April 2023) after being a Protestant and it's like learning to walk all over again.
Welcome to the faith. May God's grace embrace you. Yes indeed it's rare for a young man to immerse with such intense philosophical and theological subject matter at such a young age; and actually know what he's talking about. God bless this young man; for he also explains complex Orthodox issues in laymen's terms.
The fact that you're 12 years younger than me and at this level already is rather mind blowing tbh Also the absolute REVULSION which people have in response to the being=nothing insight is itself absolutely fascinating. I lost count of how many people have written me dissertation length comments fighting me on that one 😂
When I studied philosophy in College, I was obsessed with Hegel. I was fully into the Hegelian system and what eventually brought me out of it was A) His misunderstanding of the Orthodoxy view of the trinity due to Protestant/Catholic view of the trinity. B) Not viewing Christ as the telos of history, but rather the German culture/state as the culmination of Spirit. Coming Across Telosbound's Communal Ontology videos really helped me reject Hegelianism and coming back to the Orthodox Church(along with Church fathers/Church/etc). The Western philosophical tradition is dependent upon progression of knowledge to acheive Gnosis, its why the Catholic church has doctrinal development and why philosophy leads and ends with Hegel's "Absolute knowing". From there, philosophy has no place to turn to progress, so instead it moves forward upon itself, and viciously deconstructs itself(postmodernism). But the Orthodox Church has never changed, from the time of Pentecost, the church has maintained and defended its Phronema. It has never changed. Go to Church everyone. Trey if you are reading this I would love if you made a video on Phronema btw.
Fax western 'becoming' was refuted by King Solomon's "There is nothing new under the sun". I wonder though if the progression gnosis idea stems from neo-platonic presuppositions
🟠 (From Dante's Divine Comedy) The Nine Heavens, the Seven Archangels and the Two Saints of Paradise: I Raphael and Mercy, II Gabriel and Hope, III Barachiel and Love, IV Uriel and Wisdom, V Jeudiel and Faith, VI Michael and Justice, VII Sealtiel and Devotion, VIII Joseph and Peace, IX Mary and Charity. (There are many Saints and Blessed who talk about them)
Great content! I’d be curious to see you go a bit into St. Maximus and how the cosmological scope of the redemption of universal human nature plays in to the distinction between participation in the sonship of Christ through the Holy Spirit as opposed to the general participation in being that everyone has and the sense in which St. Paul preaches to the Epicureans and Stoics at Athens that we are all offspring of God in another sense (Acts 17). In other words, in what sense is being as such undivorcable from the inner-Trinitarian life as opposed to the unique participation in it of the Christian life?
How can we be united with Being via participation in God's energies if it's accepted that there is a real, ontological distinction between God's essence and energies? The question that really needs to be answered is: How can being exist apart from (i.e., ontologically separate from) Being? Union via participation is the Church's attempt to reconcile the self-inflicted wound of its belief in ontological separation. Furthermore, from what does God create man (and all that is)? If the answer is anything other than from God Himself, then we are immediately claiming that something transcends God. The "nothing" of creation "ex-nihilo" is not something other than God, but the Hegelian "nothing," which is "Pure Being" - God. The implications of this are vast and profound.
This video gave me a lot to think about. The infinity of God, which I take as a given since a limited God would be absurd, seems to contradict with God as a specific kind of relation, i.e. in His begetting of the Son who revealed himself to us as Jesus Christ. Further, if God truly is infinite, how can we suppose to know anything at all concretely of His nature? Sure, we can know the world, His creation intimately and see in its beauty something of Him reflected. We can know the Bible which reveals something of God. But we should not be so confident that we really know anything definitely, since all of what is revealed of God necessarily points beyond itself, beyond our comprehension. Yet God is also imminent as the very source of our being. So though God is beyond all knowledge, He is accessible by intuition, or knowing of the heart.
Sure! What I get from Hegel is that indeterminate being is the essence of the subject. So Nothing is the ground of the absolute subject. This can be seen in the unrepresentability of the subject: that every act of self-reflection is an act of self-estrangement, i.e., the subject cannot capture itself in thought (because thought is an objective act---representational rationality---that can deal only with determinate being). This should be in agreement with your view of the impossibility of self-relation. What I fear is that we're getting into ontotheological territory when we say that God's being consists only in determinate being. If subjectivity is essentially indeterminate being (and if Hegel, Schelling, Parmenides, Plotinus, etc. are right that being/subjectivity and thinking/objectivity are codependent), then to reduce God's being to determinate being is to move like the scholastics, blowing away the subjective dimension of God (apophatic theology, ecstasis/hesychasm, etc.). It seems like you do this when you equate hell with the self-relating void of negativity that characterizes subjectivity. In particular, I don't see how your pathologization of subjectivity doesn't also pathologize the essence of subjectivity, leading to an excess of objectivity. The unrepresentability of the subject seems to imply that an ontology of pure determinate being is inadequate. In the theological context, this leads to issues in disregarding the negative aspects of God which I think lie in the dark ground of spirit as Tehom, the formless and void Earth in Genesis (there should also be a connection to Mariology here). Maybe this causes epistemological issues as well because revelation is essentially subjective (this would track with the role that the Holy Spirit plays in ecstasis). Looks like I've been bloviating! i'd be really interested to talk about this more. Let me know your thoughts!
@@telosbound Ok Thanks. So I want to respectfully push back on your proof verse and please respond if you have anything to add or refute to my response. I am a Social Trinitarian, So I DO Believe that Jesus Christ is God ONE with the Father and HG. So in John 1:1-5 there is NO Son, Father and HG mentioned in this text, Please read the text as it reads don't assume your presupposition. Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain FROM the foundation of the world. Notice its say FROM Not BEFORE the foundation of the world, My personal understanding of this verse is that the PLAN of the Triune God to have "the Word" the Lamb Slain was AFTER the Fall of Adam Eve NOT In Eternity Pass before creation. If you make it that God's Incarnation to Die as Lamb Slain as a NECCESSARY ACTION before Creation then it's a Modal Callapse. It makes SIN NECCESSARY not Contigent?
If providence is one of Gods uncreated energies, was he eternally provident likewise God being known as the creator, if he has an uncreated energy of creating, was he eternally creating. So wouldn’t this lead to some energies being dependent on creation so how are they uncreated.
I think its mistaken to postulate a "being as such" at all. In my opinion being is identical to improper part. The existence of a mereologically simple piece of matter is identical to the matter its made out of. The existence of a feeling is identical to what that feeling feels like. Being is nothing over and above the improper part/whatness of a thing. The way I see it theres multiple categories of existence. 2 things are part of the same category if and only if theyre made out of the same whatness. All mereologically simple pieces of matter are made of matter. and all feelings of happiness are made of happiness. Every particular is identical to the category it belongs to but are distinct from eachother through having distinguishing properties (relative identity)
@@telosbound How do we accept that which prevents us from being ultimate? Though I am a product of limitation, I can't seem to come to terms with it. If only I could stop thinking.
@@telosbound Everything that surrounds me forces me to live in my head. At least I see no other alternative. What happens to us once we've finally incorporated everything? Perhaps we'll simply disappear.
Bruh is only 20 but teaching like a professor. Good work my friend. I am new to the Orthodox faith (just baptized last April 2023) after being a Protestant and it's like learning to walk all over again.
Agreed.
He'll be a juggernaut by the time he reaches 30!
Welcome to the faith. May God's grace embrace you. Yes indeed it's rare for a young man to immerse with such intense philosophical and theological subject matter at such a young age; and actually know what he's talking about. God bless this young man; for he also explains complex Orthodox issues in laymen's terms.
The fact that you're 12 years younger than me and at this level already is rather mind blowing tbh
Also the absolute REVULSION which people have in response to the being=nothing insight is itself absolutely fascinating. I lost count of how many people have written me dissertation length comments fighting me on that one 😂
Amazing how you use Hegel to essentially demonstrate the necessity of the Trinity
When I studied philosophy in College, I was obsessed with Hegel. I was fully into the Hegelian system and what eventually brought me out of it was A) His misunderstanding of the Orthodoxy view of the trinity due to Protestant/Catholic view of the trinity. B) Not viewing Christ as the telos of history, but rather the German culture/state as the culmination of Spirit.
Coming Across Telosbound's Communal Ontology videos really helped me reject Hegelianism and coming back to the Orthodox Church(along with Church fathers/Church/etc). The Western philosophical tradition is dependent upon progression of knowledge to acheive Gnosis, its why the Catholic church has doctrinal development and why philosophy leads and ends with Hegel's "Absolute knowing". From there, philosophy has no place to turn to progress, so instead it moves forward upon itself, and viciously deconstructs itself(postmodernism).
But the Orthodox Church has never changed, from the time of Pentecost, the church has maintained and defended its Phronema. It has never changed. Go to Church everyone. Trey if you are reading this I would love if you made a video on Phronema btw.
Fax western 'becoming' was refuted by King Solomon's "There is nothing new under the sun".
I wonder though if the progression gnosis idea stems from neo-platonic presuppositions
🟠
(From Dante's Divine Comedy)
The Nine Heavens, the Seven Archangels and the Two Saints of Paradise:
I Raphael and Mercy, II Gabriel and Hope, III Barachiel and Love, IV Uriel and Wisdom, V Jeudiel and Faith, VI Michael and Justice, VII Sealtiel and Devotion, VIII Joseph and Peace, IX Mary and Charity.
(There are many Saints and Blessed who talk about them)
Nice clear presentation, in contrast to the distracting music last time. Thank you 😊
Orthodox beard coming in clean 😎 trey
The beard does not make the man Orthodox
Did you read Dembski's book "Being as Communion"? Seems to be relevant to this topic 😉👍
Anyway, great video, thank you! And keep it going! ❤🔥
Thanks telosbound. Can you make a video backing up the idea that being is an Divine Energy?
Great content! I’d be curious to see you go a bit into St. Maximus and how the cosmological scope of the redemption of universal human nature plays in to the distinction between participation in the sonship of Christ through the Holy Spirit as opposed to the general participation in being that everyone has and the sense in which St. Paul preaches to the Epicureans and Stoics at Athens that we are all offspring of God in another sense (Acts 17).
In other words, in what sense is being as such undivorcable from the inner-Trinitarian life as opposed to the unique participation in it of the Christian life?
How can we be united with Being via participation in God's energies if it's accepted that there is a real, ontological distinction between God's essence and energies?
The question that really needs to be answered is: How can being exist apart from (i.e., ontologically separate from) Being?
Union via participation is the Church's attempt to reconcile the self-inflicted wound of its belief in ontological separation.
Furthermore, from what does God create man (and all that is)? If the answer is anything other than from God Himself, then we are immediately claiming that something transcends God. The "nothing" of creation "ex-nihilo" is not something other than God, but the Hegelian "nothing," which is "Pure Being" - God. The implications of this are vast and profound.
@@telosbound St. Gennadios Scholarios formal distinction bros rise up. Inseparable but distinct, unity in distinction.
I look forward to more videos from you.
Orthodox-Philosophy beard incoming.
This video gave me a lot to think about. The infinity of God, which I take as a given since a limited God would be absurd, seems to contradict with God as a specific kind of relation, i.e. in His begetting of the Son who revealed himself to us as Jesus Christ. Further, if God truly is infinite, how can we suppose to know anything at all concretely of His nature? Sure, we can know the world, His creation intimately and see in its beauty something of Him reflected. We can know the Bible which reveals something of God. But we should not be so confident that we really know anything definitely, since all of what is revealed of God necessarily points beyond itself, beyond our comprehension. Yet God is also imminent as the very source of our being. So though God is beyond all knowledge, He is accessible by intuition, or knowing of the heart.
I thought Hegel’s magnum opus was the Phenomenonology of spirit. Well looks like I need a second bookshelf.
Could you explain how the unrepresentability of the subject is not a problem for your denial of indeterminate being?
Sure! What I get from Hegel is that indeterminate being is the essence of the subject. So Nothing is the ground of the absolute subject. This can be seen in the unrepresentability of the subject: that every act of self-reflection is an act of self-estrangement, i.e., the subject cannot capture itself in thought (because thought is an objective act---representational rationality---that can deal only with determinate being). This should be in agreement with your view of the impossibility of self-relation.
What I fear is that we're getting into ontotheological territory when we say that God's being consists only in determinate being. If subjectivity is essentially indeterminate being (and if Hegel, Schelling, Parmenides, Plotinus, etc. are right that being/subjectivity and thinking/objectivity are codependent), then to reduce God's being to determinate being is to move like the scholastics, blowing away the subjective dimension of God (apophatic theology, ecstasis/hesychasm, etc.). It seems like you do this when you equate hell with the self-relating void of negativity that characterizes subjectivity. In particular, I don't see how your pathologization of subjectivity doesn't also pathologize the essence of subjectivity, leading to an excess of objectivity.
The unrepresentability of the subject seems to imply that an ontology of pure determinate being is inadequate. In the theological context, this leads to issues in disregarding the negative aspects of God which I think lie in the dark ground of spirit as Tehom, the formless and void Earth in Genesis (there should also be a connection to Mariology here). Maybe this causes epistemological issues as well because revelation is essentially subjective (this would track with the role that the Holy Spirit plays in ecstasis).
Looks like I've been bloviating! i'd be really interested to talk about this more. Let me know your thoughts!
Which church fathers can I read for more about this?
Χριστόσ Ανέστη
Αληθώς Ανέστη
Do you know the Scriptures verses that would support the view that Jesus was Begotten Eternally before creation?
@@telosbound Ok Thanks.
So I want to respectfully push back on your proof verse and please respond if you have anything to add or refute to my response.
I am a Social Trinitarian, So I DO Believe that Jesus Christ is God ONE with the Father and HG.
So in John 1:1-5 there is NO Son, Father and HG mentioned in this text, Please read the text as it reads don't assume your presupposition.
Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain FROM the foundation of the world.
Notice its say FROM Not BEFORE the foundation of the world, My personal understanding of this verse is that the PLAN of the Triune God to have "the Word" the Lamb Slain was AFTER the Fall of Adam Eve NOT In Eternity Pass before creation.
If you make it that God's Incarnation to Die as Lamb Slain as a NECCESSARY ACTION before Creation then it's a Modal Callapse.
It makes SIN NECCESSARY not Contigent?
If providence is one of Gods uncreated energies, was he eternally provident likewise God being known as the creator, if he has an uncreated energy of creating, was he eternally creating. So wouldn’t this lead to some energies being dependent on creation so how are they uncreated.
you consider the magnum opus to be science of logic and not phenomenology?
I think its mistaken to postulate a "being as such" at all. In my opinion being is identical to improper part.
The existence of a mereologically simple piece of matter is identical to the matter its made out of.
The existence of a feeling is identical to what that feeling feels like. Being is nothing over and above the improper part/whatness of a thing.
The way I see it theres multiple categories of existence. 2 things are part of the same category if and only if theyre made out of the same whatness. All mereologically simple pieces of matter are made of matter. and all feelings of happiness are made of happiness.
Every particular is identical to the category it belongs to but are distinct from eachother through having distinguishing properties (relative identity)
That seems pretty clear and straightforward to me
What îs called the song? 😅
Does otherness prevent us from being God?
@@telosbound How do we accept that which prevents us from being ultimate? Though I am a product of limitation, I can't seem to come to terms with it. If only I could stop thinking.
@@telosbound Everything that surrounds me forces me to live in my head. At least I see no other alternative. What happens to us once we've finally incorporated everything? Perhaps we'll simply disappear.