Search Results
7/4/2025, 3:48:53 AM
>>24519137
A philosophy that fails to make you a better person or help you live a better life is a defective philosophy. The Good and the True are Being as know in different aspects. The idea that one can divorce the practical from the theoretical is a grave error. It assumes that the nous can become unclouded with no change in the orientation of the will. Yet theoria is the fruit of praxis. One will fail in attaining knowledge, gnosis, unless one's appetites and passions are properly oriented by and to logos. If we desire other things more than Goodness and Truth themselves then we will subvert our attempts to reach those whenever doing so satisfies those corrupted loves. Only the attainment of blessed dispassion, the orientation and formation of the concupiscible and irascible appetites, allows one the unity to engage in theoria and the attainment of gnosis.
As Origen says, "Good is one; many are
the base. Truth is one; many are the false. True righteousness is one; many are the states that act it as a part. God’s wisdom is one; many are the wisdoms of this age and of the rulers of this age which come to nought. The word of God is one, but many are the words alien to God."
Ultimately, the love of wisdom must be drawn on by the love of Beauty then, hence, the Philokalia. As Saint Paul says:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
A philosophy that fails to make you a better person or help you live a better life is a defective philosophy. The Good and the True are Being as know in different aspects. The idea that one can divorce the practical from the theoretical is a grave error. It assumes that the nous can become unclouded with no change in the orientation of the will. Yet theoria is the fruit of praxis. One will fail in attaining knowledge, gnosis, unless one's appetites and passions are properly oriented by and to logos. If we desire other things more than Goodness and Truth themselves then we will subvert our attempts to reach those whenever doing so satisfies those corrupted loves. Only the attainment of blessed dispassion, the orientation and formation of the concupiscible and irascible appetites, allows one the unity to engage in theoria and the attainment of gnosis.
As Origen says, "Good is one; many are
the base. Truth is one; many are the false. True righteousness is one; many are the states that act it as a part. God’s wisdom is one; many are the wisdoms of this age and of the rulers of this age which come to nought. The word of God is one, but many are the words alien to God."
Ultimately, the love of wisdom must be drawn on by the love of Beauty then, hence, the Philokalia. As Saint Paul says:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
6/27/2025, 4:19:16 PM
>>24500456
The Timaeus itself suggests it is speculative, but the idea I think is that some of the underlying elements can be justified with proper understanding (proper understanding involving noesis/intellectus, not just discursive justification from axioms as in Enlightenment thought). So, Aristotle's point about the chora being akin to his theory of matter (really prime matter) I would take as suggesting an isomorphism in theory, and a suggestion of what can be known through a sort of transcendental argument about what is necessary for real change given the primacy of act over potency.
Aristotle often refers to the "Platonists" and not Plato, and maybe I am reading too much into this, but this strikes me as something indicating that there might be a gap between naive readings of Plato by some and Plato. For, the Greeks who received Aristotle certainly still tended to take him in a Platonist direction, the "empiricist materialist Aristotle,' being a modern invention.
Personally, I like the later synthesis more, particularly Saint Maximus and Saint Thomas.
The Timaeus itself suggests it is speculative, but the idea I think is that some of the underlying elements can be justified with proper understanding (proper understanding involving noesis/intellectus, not just discursive justification from axioms as in Enlightenment thought). So, Aristotle's point about the chora being akin to his theory of matter (really prime matter) I would take as suggesting an isomorphism in theory, and a suggestion of what can be known through a sort of transcendental argument about what is necessary for real change given the primacy of act over potency.
Aristotle often refers to the "Platonists" and not Plato, and maybe I am reading too much into this, but this strikes me as something indicating that there might be a gap between naive readings of Plato by some and Plato. For, the Greeks who received Aristotle certainly still tended to take him in a Platonist direction, the "empiricist materialist Aristotle,' being a modern invention.
Personally, I like the later synthesis more, particularly Saint Maximus and Saint Thomas.
Page 1