Dear Friends,

Having received instruction in Roman Catholicism and having practiced professional philosophy for almost ten years, I tended to have a positive view of the role of Christian practice. For a variety of reasons I began studying Eastern Christianity and praying Byzantine Matins and Vespers about a year ago, as well as the Jesus Prayer. I would like to take this further, but a number of impediments stand in my way. In particular I have encountered (especially among American converts to orthodoxy) what appears to be a genuine antipathy to philosophy; this often goes along with rather uninformed criticisms of scholastic philosophy.

I understand this attitude in part. I recognize that the ancient Church was worried about some of the negative impact of certain aspects of Platonism. Also I acknowledge that certain aspects of late scholasticism (especially in the form of nominalism) led to Protestantism, and certainly Enlightenment rationalism remains an ongoing threat to Christian tradition. Nevertheless, balance is required. I take it as a settled conclusion of serious scholarship that many of the Fathers (and many of the hierarchs who participated in the Council) were deeply educated in middle-Platonism, neo-Platonism, stoicism, and both Aristotelian logic and rhetoric. When I bring this up in discussions the response run something like this, "well they just used the philosophical language but gave it an entirely different meaning." Although there is some truth to this analysis, it is only half the story. Many ancient Fathers affirmatively used philosophical insights and tools whenever helpful.

An example of this problem involves nous and theoria. Inevitably an orthodox commentator will insist that nous is not reason and theoria is not mere intellectual contemplation (an air of contempt sometimes surrounds the comments). To be sure the Patristic truth about nous and theoria exceeds the highest aspirations of the philosophers. On the other hand, if one reads Plato, Plotinus, or even Aristotle one cannot think that by nous they mean reason, and their view of theoria has very little to do with abstract speculation. Again true Christian theoria surpasses philosophical doctrines, but if we read the ancient philosophers generously surely we can recognize that they were on a trajectory that was fulfilled by Christianity. Even if philosophy is always incomplete, it can provide useful insights. Similar corrective comments could be made regarding Orthodox presentations of scholasticism, which often amount to a rather grotesque caricature (although I would be the first to admit legitimate *balanced* criticisms can be made).

So is there room for the practice of philosophy in Eastern Christianity? Are there active serious philosophers among Eastern Christianity? Can anyone direct me to some positive reading on this point? Are there Eastern theologians who affirm a positive contribution to the Byzantine theological patrimony?

Thank you friends,
Smith

Smith:

Christ is in our midst!!

A belated welcome to the forum.

Bob
Moderator

Smith:

I think the question of whether there are serious philosophers in the East is perhaps a bit too vague. If by the practice of philosophy, you mean philosophy for its own sake, then no, this is not typical of the Eastern Fathers who did not divorce the practice of philosophy from theology. St. Basil, for example, did not draw up philosophical categories for their own sake, but in order to describe how the Son could truly be divine against the arguments of Eunomius.

That being said, there are several Eastern theologians who have begun to dialogue with Continental Philosophy. Metropolitan John Zizioulas' book Being as Communion is a response of some sorts to Heidegger's philosophy, for example.

There is the Russian philosopher, Vladimir Soloviev.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Solovyov_(philosopher)

Smith and Cavardossi,

Welcome, both of you, to the forum.

Many years,

Neil

Thank you. I appreciate the unique opportunity for discussion and insight provided by this forum.

Cavardossi:

Thank you for the response. Like a good philosopher I will respond with a question of my own.

What do you mean by philosophy for its own sake? I guess this phrase could have several meanings. When I teach ancient philosophy I am gudied by P. Hadot's excellent research, which seems to demonstrate that ancient philosophy was a way of life, not merely or even primarily a matter of abstract explanation. This approach to philosophy is the context of the Patristic claim that Christianity is the true philosophy---the truth of philosophy, its fulfillment. I think it is arguable that continental philosophy has maintained this emphasis, despite certain problems.

What do I mean by "serious philosophy?" The serious practice of philosophy requires an open and sustained engagement with the discourse of the philosophical tradition and the development and use of its canonical techniques. Certainly this involves the willingness to learn about the diverse philosophers according to their own terms. None of this of course needs to be strictly for its own sake or artificially divorced the Christian way.

I look forward to your response.

Best regards,

BLS

PS. Metropolitan John Zizioulas appears to be engaged in the kind of philosophical practice I am suggesting.

Anna:

Is the Vladimir Soloviev in good repute among Eastern Christians? I have seen his work advertised and it appear interesting.

BLS