Philosophy is dead.

[Astolfo]

  Forgive me Underground Man, but before even examining your arguments I have to say a few words about your attitude. In a nutshell: you should chill.

   I told you I'd check your link, and made clear that I was just claryfing a couple of points before coming back on the subject. No need to sound imperative about it, no need to capitalize whatsoever. We are two human beings with a shared fascination with the work of an immortal writer, not the representatives of two opposing Christian factions trying to score points by degrading the adversary's thesis. As fellow believers, we should reason together in love, not spite.

   I am a Roman Catholic, but have a lot of respect for Orthodoxy, if only for having known personally members of the different Churches of the East with whom I have shared long doctrinal debates but also fraternal moments of worship and prayer, and plain and basic human friendship. I am well aware of the concept and the practice of hesychasm -and its equivalent in Sufi Islam, Dhikr- in the Orthodox tradition, but I don't see it as an excluding alternative to rational thought, just as I don't see Aquinas' rationalism as opposed to the existential experience of the divine. Both are, in my humble view, complementary, and I think that on both sides of the divide (Roman and Eastern Churches) the arguments of the counterpart have been simplified for polemical or even political reasons over the years.

   I'm not here to launch a new Holy War, neither do I wish to somehow "catholisize" FD's work to render it more suitable to my personal ideas (Mauriac did that before, thank you very much). I am actually trying to do the exact opposite, that is to learn more about Orthodoxy AS IT IS (that is not AS I THINK IT SHOULD BE) with the help of one of my favorite authors.

   In other words, I was trying to be ecumenical.

   As for my quote taken from Fides et Ratio, allow me to humbly add the following words in the original text, so as to make the logic behind the list of authors mentioned by Karol Magnus more apparent: "in referring to these I intend not to endorse every aspect of their thought, but simply to offer significant examples of a process of philosophical enquiry which was enriched by engaging the data of faith. One thing is certain: attention to the spiritual journey of these masters can only give greater momentum to both the search for truth and the effort to apply the results of that search to the service of humanity. It is to be hoped that now and in the future there will be those who continue to cultivate this great philosophical and theological tradition for the good of both the Church and humanity".

   An no, I'm not bouncing back shouting SO HAVE YOU READ THE ENCYCLICAL? COME BACK ONLY WHEN YOU HAVE! I just linked and quoted a text that I think is pertinent to this discussion, from what I think of as an authoritative source, that is the (late) Pope.

   But if the mentioning of opinions somehow distant from yours in this or any other matter somehow constitues a problem for you, then I promise I won't do it again.

[underworld men]

Well if I came across to harsh I apologize. As for sobornost I can not say I embrace it outside Orthodoxy. I am from the school that a christian is a christian let people have there christianity. If their is disagreement then God will work it out not men nor mens' minds. I can say for your quote that it is still wrong I can not undo it's misrepresentation.

Now for a little Dostoevskian essence.
You ask humility of me, so be it. So now I ask it of you. Before another long post please, pretty, please, with sugar on top, with all the love in the world, and an open mind -read-absorb the link and the quote I posted. Your orthodox friends I fear have done you a mis-service. By not being honest they have not expressed what is being said and has been for almost 1,000 years. Ha they must not be Serbs

Sobornost's limit is when the uniqueness/essence of truth is compromised for the sake of unity.

[Astolfo]

   (You are right: my Orthodox buddies were mostly Greek and Russians...and now that you mention it, yes, they did say someting about Serbians being somehow radical in these matters...)

    Well, I've read your post and links and quotes and I have to say that, all spelling issues aside, I strongly disagree with this so called "school that a christian is a christian let people have there christianity. If their is disagreement then God will work it out not men nor mens' minds". I think that if we have a sense of reason it is a part of what God gave us and I also believe we should use it as a tool and a common ground to talk to each other, be it among christians, non christians or both at the same time.

    I also think that the George Metallinos' analysis of Western philosophical evolution is reductionist, rather schematic and obtuse: for instance, when he says that "nominalism turned out to be the DNA, in a way, of European civilization, whose essential elements are dualism philosophically and individualism (eudomenism) socially" he gets it wrong both on what nominalisl actually is and what Hellenic influence on Western thought (christian or non christian) has been.

    For instance: "Scholasticism is supported on the adoption of the Platonic realia"? No, I don't think so.

   Same thing with the metropolitian (which metropolitian, by the way?) quote you included in your post: "I believe that the greatest problem of western philosophy is that it identifies the nous with reason and intellectual knowledge with existential knowledge. Even contemporary scholars in the West point to this fact. In truth the neptic tradition is the common tradition of both the East and the West, before the intrusion of scholasticism and the identification of theology with metaphysics." I actually believe the exact contrary: that the main problem of current western philosophy (and current western culture in general) is that it DENIES any possible link between intellectual knowledge and existential knowledge.

   (It's justa that the existential knowledge the West thinks about has nothing to do with theosis and everything to do with postmodern narcicissm and individualism, two incarnations of XXI century nihilism, in itself a byproduct of rationalism gone nuts, see Fides et Ratio quote in my other post)

    In broad terms I think that these militantly antirational Orthodox theories -nope, I wasn't aware of them up to now, so thanks for the enlightment, and I'm not being ironic- can be seen (and it is a typical FD theme) as an example of the Orthodow (and more specifically Russian Orthodox) paranoia about being infected by foreign ideas: a sort of pre-emptive theological nationalism, where you define that the only possible source for thological evolution is "local" and, as you have pointed out in your last post, every christian should stay in his little churchyard and NOT look over the fence to see what's happening in the world outside.

    A pity, really, since (altough I do consider the scholastic-nominalist-humanist-reform-enlightment conga line theory a fluffy bit of historical oversimplification) I also think that the spiritual tradition of the Churches of the East could have a beneficial effect on Western christian culture, if only though its emphasis in prayer and the personal experience of God's presence, which are parts of the Christian tradition that have been neglected in our practice of the faith.

   (Neglected but not totally forgetten: witness the case of the Charismatic Renewal: http://www.rc.net/lansing/ctk/welcome/index.html)

    "New (positive) philosophy only accepts truths which are verified through rational thought. It is the absolute authority of Western thinking", warns your friend Metallinos, and he adds "a Church which persists in metaphysical theology, will always be obliged to beg Galileo's pardon. But a Science that also ignores its limits, will deteriorate into metaphysics and will either deal with the existence of God (which is not its responsibility) or reject God completely". I think, on the contrary, that a common ground can and has to be defined between the two.

     To quote a living Pope (for a change): "in the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world's profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions. A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures" (and so) "for philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding" (for) "The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur - this is the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time"

   (full text at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html)

   Then again, to enter this dimension of dialogue ("It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures") one has to believe that this exchange is a) possible and b) beneficial to both the East and West.

    I believe it's not your case.

[underworld men]

Well I did not expect you to agree with Professor Metallinos. But since he is a Greek professor at the University of Athens, Greece. I am more then expecting your handling of this in the typical derogatory fashion. I will take his opinion over yours. You are entitled to your opinion. As V Lossky points out the church has always been at war with various ''interpretations" of Christianity, other religions (Hellenic philosophy, paganism) and atheism. But not out of distain, not out of the will to power, but because of an empirical experience of God that as catholics (sobornost) we believe that if people follow the tradition that is Orthodoxy they can do as we have done. We accept that we will be challenged so how about you?

Theoria silences all conflict, it answers definitively. The understanding/tradition must not be changed/weakened or it will eventually stop working. We openly reject out right the elitism of those who came to us learned from us (thinking they could steal such a thing as truth) then left trying to claim they had God. Which if  they are exposed have nothing but words and ideas. We as catholics believe in communion with God for ALL people. So keep jabbin your only blindsiding yourself.

Though you don't seem to like to answer questions like have you read N. Lossky, V Lossky, Notes from the underground (which is Dostoevsky's attack on your rationalism),

 As for your quick distortion of my comments, well you are wrong. I believe people can go where they want and look over any fence or wall they see fit. I will also say WE as Orthodox Christians hate no one. We just disagree. You also are wrong on your use of our terms like memory eternal.

You may disagree- freewill, freewill.

[Astolfo]

  For confirming what I suspected: dialogue clearly isn't a priority item on your agenda. Funny for a guy in a Forum, though...

    I spoke of Metallinos in the same derogatory fashion as you spoke of Karol Magnus, with one crucial distinction: I read your link, you didn't read mine.

   Also, perhaps I would like to excercise my free will by disagreeing with you, but frankly most of the time I don't know what you're talking about.

    I am neither a rationalist nor an elitist, and I'm frankly surprised at the way you hurl these definitions with a sense of total ease, while in the process transforming the singular you whom you are discussiong with -that is, me- into a plural you that inhabits only the (vast, I gather) scenaries of your mind.

    Also repetitive misspellings, approximative (intuitive?) syntax, and a polemical tone close to the invective that you seem to cherish quite enjoy don't help in making what your write any clearer.

   E.G.: "Which if  they are exposed have nothing but words and ideas". This, dear U, means absolutely nothing, so it's kinda hard to disagree, see?

   PS And of course I've read the Underground Man. And keep rereading it all the time. It's my all time favorite FD book. Which is one of the reasons why I landed in this website and this forum. To exchange impressions and converse with kindred spirits who share a weakness for the same, mighty author.

    Not  to be taught "what silences all conflict" and "answers definitively", according to the strangely ethnic-yet-universal take on Orthodoxy you have chosen as your Ideological Passpartout Key.

[underworld men]

Who says I was talking about Roman catholicism?
But now that I might focus, on the subject, tell me where is Dostoevsky's love of the Roman catholic church?
So what would be improper about expressing his position on the matter? Where is Dostoevsky's love of the Jesuit?

So no one is saying people are not welcome to debate, but forgive me if I disagree with you about your theories on Aloysha. As well as your misinformed depiction of Dostoevsky and the Eastern Orthodox. I will say this type of behaviour is exactly what angers people in the orthodox church. Roman catholics stating that the difference is political and when their are shown a distinctive difference they go all dirty pool.

Dirty pool. Another tactic common by the Roman catholic church is to turn orthodox against orthodox. One could point to the unite, eastern rite (Hey Axon could help here), and ustashe (slav against slav). There is a long history filled with just forgive get past it, so we can start screwing you again. The crimean war of Dostoevsky's time where the British murdered the Orthodox Russian soldiers trying to take back Constantinople and Hagia Sophia. Christian killing Christian for the sake of Muslim. And I'll bet you'll deny that the French where involved. Wee?

Or to quote you...

" In FD politics are religious (even diabolical!), ethics are religious (no sin no crime, no crime no punishment), sickness is religious (witness Aliosha kissing the holy Russian soil in the throbs of an epileptic fit) death is as religious as Zosima's foul post mortem funk, and the only possible human redemption is religious itself (the deleted and restored Stavorguine confession)."

  So hey, how are you going to avoid the whole matter?

I suggest you try some of your own advice and chill out.

We can air all this dirty laundry so people can see just what kind of repeated over and over and over again double-crossing backstabbing the West is quote famous for. I have all the time in the world. But of course you may disagree. Hey we can make a thread or two or three or 500 about nothing but..

[Astolfo]

   So let me see if I get this right: just for being born where you were born (and I was tempted to say "in the land down Under", but you wouldn't get the joke), you have been given the Theoria, which "silences all conflict (and) answers definitively".

   Problem is, this "understanding/tradition must not be changed/weakened or it will eventually stop working", but also it is constantly put under threat by two-bit cheap imitators "who came to us learned from us (thinking they could steal such a thing as truth) then left trying to claim they had God" (hey bro, don't touch my totem pole, willeya?). So, in a nutshell, you live in fear.

    In other words: Truth is ethnic, exclusive, non transmissable (since non rational by definition), unconceivable and inimitable outside your culture. Oh, and of course it belongs to you. Apart from that, it may be also described as universal and beyond all human dimensions. Pure surreal comedy!

    And you also have to be very vigilant about your Exclusive Ethnic Truth, for evil Westerners lurk out there in the dark, plotting to get slav against slav and christian against christian. So not only do you have the Truth, you have to defend it because they're trying to take it away from you! You're surrounded! They're coming to get you!

   The danger is always imminent: after all, when not plotting the Crimean War or planning Nato interventions in the former Yugoslavia, as you lucidly teach me, Roman Catholics have a tndency to "go all dirty pool". Whatever THAT is...
   
    Well I don't know abour Alyosha's epilepsy, man, but you have a baaaaad case of ethnic and cultural paranoia. How very undostoevskian and unsolovievian of you...

   PS FD had no love for the Roman Catholic Church and/or for the Jesuits, of course. And who said he did? You are responding to unexisting arguments nobody has advanced or proposed, U.

    I strongly suggest that you answer to what is actually said to you (if you can grasp the meaning of it, that is) and not what you make up in your mind. THAT too is part of the mechanics of dialogue. Which you evidently ignore.

[underworld men]

  So let me see if I get this right: just for being born where you were born (and I was tempted to say "in the land down Under", but you wouldn't get the joke), you have been given the Theoria, which "silences all conflict (and) answers definitively".

If your Roman catholic you put words in peoples' mouth to make them into Straw Men?

   Problem is, this "understanding/tradition must not be changed/weakened or it will eventually stop working", but also it is constantly put under threat by two-bit cheap imitators "who came to us learned from us (thinking they could steal such a thing as truth) then left trying to claim they had God" (hey bro, don't touch my totem pole, willeya?). So, in a nutshell, you live in fear.

Stop projecting I was actually playing off of St Augustine's confessions.

    In other words: Truth is ethnic, exclusive, non transmissable (since non rational by definition), unconceivable and inimitable outside your culture. Oh, and of course it belongs to you. Apart from that, it may be also described as universal and beyond all human dimensions. Pure surreal comedy!

In other words you will never address directly my points but will instead try to distort them into something more easily dismissed. But this tactic will not change history it will not change the past, which is bigger then me and almost as big as your ego.

    And you also have to be very vigilant about your Exclusive Ethnic Truth, for evil Westerners lurk out there in the dark, plotting to get slav against slav and christian against christian. So not only do you have the Truth, you have to defend it because they're trying to take it away from you! You're surrounded! They're coming to get you!

Straw men, will not change the past you can make fun of what you are ignorant from all you want, once again it won't change it.

   The danger is always imminent: after all, when not plotting the Crimean War or planning Nato interventions in the former Yugoslavia, as you lucidly teach me, Roman Catholics have a tndency to "go all dirty pool". Whatever THAT is...

Yes Kososovo is still very fresh and new in the minds of the slavs. As is the WAR that just happened in the balkins between the Roman catholic Croates and the Orthodox Serbs but make fun it, that will make it all the better play up all the murder as nothing but paraniod delusions. I bet the Roman Catholic side did no wrong though? Right?
   
    Well I don't know abour Alyosha's epilepsy, man,

No you don't and you completely engaged in dirty pool by trying to make the claim of Ardan that you did. But hey what are ethics to a Christian?

 but you have a baaaaad case of ethnic and cultural paranoia. How very undostoevskian and unsolovievian of you...

I think there are enough readers on here of Diary of a Writer to see just how ignorant that comment is.

   PS FD had no love for the Roman Catholic Church and/or for the Jesuits, of course. And who said he did? You are responding to unexisting arguments nobody has advanced or proposed, U.

No sir you can not state on one hand that I am being undostoeviskian for not being forgetful of the European nonsense and mass murder of the past and then in the very next sentence validate that you are ignorant of what one of Dostoevsky's conflict was all about-European intervention into the East.

    I strongly suggest that you answer to what is actually said to you (if you can grasp the meaning of it, that is)

I as the moderater strongly suggest you reign in your authoritarian tone follow your own advice and chill out.

and not what you make up in your mind.

What like Aloysha being an epileptic. But wait that was you in your own mind. Now be specific and tell me what I made up.

 THAT too is part of the mechanics of dialogue. Which you evidently ignore.

So you think you can have a fit and that will somehow draw attention away from your mistakes and or your comments? Let alone the history between the Roman Catholic church and the Orthodox church? A history you try and deny as paranoia and delusion. Well it won't work.

As a matter of fact. That history IT WILL COME OUT. I suggest you hope and pray it does only after there is some larger reconcilation between Roman catholicism and Orthodoxy. I do think that the posters on this board are due an understanding of that past which to the west in general is missing. I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to share. My little Roman Catholic friend. This has been needed for along time. Yes and Dostoevsky had every intent to bring it out. There's a special Roman catholic word for this isn't there it's one burning with irony- the word is "cathartic".

I tell ya what, lets start with the Roman Catholic church returning to us the Face of Christ/Mandylion or as you know it the Shroud of Turin. Since your crusaders "liberated" it by massacring our priests and stealing it from Hagia Sophia after you lovely Christians sacked Constantinople. Come on tell me how I made that up. Oh and we are doing well enough to where you no longer need to protect it from us, or please pretty with sugar on top talk to your kind priests and return it. Please.

And for the record I'm just getting started. This is just a drop in bucket. Hey it's your show Mr Know it all. Lets air this dirty laundry. I think people ought to know. Don't you?

[Astolfo]

  In am interested in discussiong Dostoevski, not the ideological resentment and paranoia of an illiterate Serb nationalist pedant.

   Keep going with the bucket, boy.  It may benefit that "dirty pool" you keep talking about.

   Last word of advise: buy a grammar manual. For the English language, that is.

   Roger, and out.

[underworld men]

 In am interested in discussiong Dostoevski, not the ideological resentment and paranoia of an illiterate Serb nationalist pedant.

   Keep going with the bucket, boy.  It may benefit that "dirty pool" you keep talking about.

   Last word of advise: buy a grammar manual. For the English language, that is.

   Roger, and out.

Last word to you-
BYE.

[Astolfo]

  Sure, pool boy, sure.

[underworld men]

 Sure, pool boy, sure.

Just can't let it go, but want us too?

[Astolfo]

I guess you meant "but you want us to", right?

I told you that a Dictionary and a grammar manual could come in handy...

And yes, I can't let go. It's my weakness: I find illiterates positively entertaining. Specially paranoid pedantic ones.

[underworld men]

I guess you meant "but you want us to", right?

I told you that a Dictionary and a grammar manual could come in handy...

And yes, I can't let go. It's my weakness: I find illiterates positively entertaining. Specially paranoid pedantic ones.

Us as in orthodox.

[Astolfo]

   "Us" was correct, U Man, but "too" is a red pencil mistake. Not to mention your syntax ("will not change the past you can make fun of what you are ignorant from all you want", one example among dozens) or the recurring dirty pool image.... it is is an image, that is.

  As I already pointed out: great entertainment potential, at least for those who, like myself, find illiteracy amusing, but seriously detrimental when language is supposedly used in a polemical context (that is, when someone actually has to understand what you write).

   More succintly: a pedant zealot convinced that he owns the Truth and with a tendency to dispense uninvited lectures with extreme ease shoud at least be able to spell correctly the words he uses. But, once again, it doesn't seem to be your case. If you are one day older than 20, it may even be considered a big problem. If not, you can still go to school.

    To learn instead of teaching, for a change. What a refreshing perspective!