Orthodox Philosophers

[Sam G]

Greetings and God bless,

Would anyone happen to know any good (yet accessible) philosophers who hold the Orthodox faith that would be worth reading?  Thank you for your time. 

[FormerCalvinist]

Richard Swinburne has a few accessible books.

[xOrthodox4Christx]

David Bentley Hart is a very well known Orthodox philosopher.

[truthseeker32]

There is a book called Turning East that contains testimonials from several philosophers who are converts to Orthodoxy.

http://www.svspress.com/turning-east-contemporary-philosophers-and-the-ancient-christian-faith/

[Fabio Leite]

David Bradshaw has produced a couple of interesting things.

[Justin Kissel]

Who else...?

[Porter ODoran]

The Cappadocian Fathers.

[Justin Kissel]

The Cappadocian Fathers.

I heard they died a while back, so they don't count...

[Iconodule]

Greetings and God bless,

Would anyone happen to know any good (yet accessible) philosophers who hold the Orthodox faith that would be worth reading?  Thank you for your time. 

Fr. Pavel Florensky

[Ekdikos]

David Bentley Hart is a very well known Orthodox philosopher.

And he is questioning Palamist doctrine... better to pass.

[Iconodule]

David Bentley Hart is a very well known Orthodox philosopher.

And he is questioning Palamist doctrine... better to pass.

Palamism is not the end-all and be-all of Orthodoxy, much as certain modern Orthodox want it to be.

[truthseeker32]

David Bentley Hart is a very well known Orthodox philosopher.

And he is questioning Palamist doctrine... better to pass.

Heaven forbid we read authors that disagree with our perspectives.

[Ekdikos]

David Bentley Hart is a very well known Orthodox philosopher.

And he is questioning Palamist doctrine... better to pass.

Palamism is not the end-all and be-all of Orthodoxy, much as certain modern Orthodox want it to be.

I failed to notice it since he is being celebrated in Paschal Circle, courtesy in Byzantine rite, reserved to those who defined Orthodox teaching in encounter with heresy. Also, as far as I remeber nobody besides mr. Bentley Hart disagree over Palamism... many go that far to call Hesychast councils Ecumenical... Other certainly go to accept Hesychast councils as absolutley binding in matters of Faith...

[Ekdikos]

David Bentley Hart is a very well known Orthodox philosopher.

And he is questioning Palamist doctrine... better to pass.

Heaven forbid we read authors that disagree with our perspectives.

Well OP asked for philosophers holding Orthodox faith... didnt he?

[Iconodule]

David Bentley Hart is a very well known Orthodox philosopher.

And he is questioning Palamist doctrine... better to pass.

Palamism is not the end-all and be-all of Orthodoxy, much as certain modern Orthodox want it to be.

I failed to notice it since he is being celebrated in Paschal Circle, courtesy in Byzantine rite, reserved to those who defined Orthodox teaching in encounter with heresy. Also, as far as I remeber nobody besides mr. Bentley Hart disagree over Palamism... many go that far to call Hesychast councils Ecumenical... Other certainly go to accept Hesychast councils as absolutley binding in matters of Faith...

There is a difference between St. Gregory Palamas and Palamism. Hart takes some issue with the latter, especially the "Neo-Palamism" of the 20th century. That someone might confuse a rejection of a modernist conception of Palamas with a rejection of the saint himself is part of the problem.

[Ekdikos]

David Bentley Hart is a very well known Orthodox philosopher.

And he is questioning Palamist doctrine... better to pass.

Palamism is not the end-all and be-all of Orthodoxy, much as certain modern Orthodox want it to be.

o
I failed to notice it since he is being celebrated in Paschal Circle, courtesy in Byzantine rite, reserved to those who defined Orthodox teaching in encounter with heresy. Also, as far as I remeber nobody besides mr. Bentley Hart disagree over Palamism... many go that far to call Hesychast councils Ecumenical... Other certainly go to accept Hesychast councils as absolutley binding in matters of Faith...

There is a difference between St. Gregory Palamas and Palamism. Hart takes some issue with the latter, especially the "Neo-Palamism" of the 20th century. That someone might confuse a rejection of a modernist conception of Palamas with a rejection of the saint himself is part of the problem.

Had it be critique of Vladimir Lossky, than maybe, I would see your point. But Hart goes pretty much on stating, he does not understand necessity of Palama's insisting of essence-energies distinction... and his remarks about Palama not being original metaphysicist... I am paraphrasing, but when it would be only Lossky, I would ignore. Despite the fact, name of Lossky is far greater Authority than Hart... but Hart seems to have issue with Palamas and Palamists (Nicholas Kabasylla, Nilos Kabasylla etc) rather than with Neo-Palamists... (Lossky and co).

[Porter ODoran]

The Cappadocian Fathers.

I heard they died a while back, so they don't count...

You heard wrong. "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

[Fabio Leite]

There is a whole trend among Orthodox theologians today to reject if not in substance, at least in spirit, much of what was done in the 20th century.

There is a clear tendency to doubt that "neo-patristic synthesis" is viable or even ontologically true. That much of the discourse around energies and essences is just an excuse to be biased against the West.

In this contemporary trend emphasis on the differences if not frowned upon is at least not desired. It is very much interested in what is similar or maybe even the same under different words.

It is true that there is an undercurrent of Anti-Westernism, specially in Orthodox political theology ("God really wants to be under a Christian dictator, an authoritarian theocracy is the icon of the kingdom of God, opression is only bad if practiced against us, it'd be nice to force an Orthodox Christian society over other peoples, bleh to satanic democracy!")

But I believe modern theologians have been a bit too much on the opposite side exchanging the ethnophiletism of particular nations for the ethnophiletism of globalism, the nationality of the global state in construction. Symbolic of that is the theological school of Volos who wants Orthodoxy in Greece to detach itself from the Greek nationality but not from the state. They want to be global citizens but still have all the privileges of being government employees of Greece.

Global citizenship is as bad as national citizenship for the church. Probably worse because at least some nationalities are natural and the "global citizen" is entirely artificial.

[WPM]

Philo or Clement of Alexandria? ..

[Porter ODoran]

Philo or Clement of Alexandria?

But Philo was a Jewish philosopher.

[WPM]

Philo or Clement of Alexandria?

But Philo was a Jewish philosopher.

So? ...

[Porter ODoran]

Philo or Clement of Alexandria?

But Philo was a Jewish philosopher.

So? ...

Ooh I see what you did there.

[minasoliman]

Greetings and God bless,

Would anyone happen to know any good (yet accessible) philosophers who hold the Orthodox faith that would be worth reading?  Thank you for your time. 

Fr. Pavel Florensky

You can add Fr. Sergius Bulgakov to this as well, who I understand was also a convert from atheism.

And although not technically a philosopher, but still, the late Metropolitan Anthony Bloom was also a convert from atheism, and very spiritual in his works, but not far from philosophical as well.

[pensateomnia]

Nikolay Lossky, father of Vladimir Lossky and one-time professor at SVS, developed a distinctly Russian Orthodox philosophical system and also published a history of Russian philosophy that is still available in English.

[Sean Chaney]

Elder Paisios from the Holy Mt. Athos.  He was also a excellent scripture interpreter and predicts one day that Constantinople will again be Greek.

[Fabio Leite]

Elder Paisios from the Holy Mt. Athos.  He was also a excellent scripture interpreter and predicts one day that Constantinople will again be Greek.

The wheels of history are always turning. If it happens in any distant future that Turkey is weaker than Greece in economy and defense and the world geopolitics is such that the other countries couldn't care less, Greece would invade Turkey.

[hecma925]

Elder Paisios from the Holy Mt. Athos.  He was also a excellent scripture interpreter and predicts one day that Constantinople will again be Greek.

The wheels of history are always turning. If it happens in any distant future that Turkey is weaker than Greece in economy and defense and the world geopolitics is such that the other countries couldn't care less, Greece would invade Turkey.

I'd say that Elder Paisios is not a philosopher.

[Strongylocentrotus]

Elder Paisios from the Holy Mt. Athos.  He was also a excellent scripture interpreter and predicts one day that Constantinople will again be Greek.

The wheels of history are always turning. If it happens in any distant future that Turkey is weaker than Greece in economy and defense and the world geopolitics is such that the other countries couldn't care less, Greece would invade Turkey.

The Turks would destroy them.  The modern Hellenic State has no go power economically and is disfunctional politically.  The Turks outnumber them.  More Turks live in the environs of Istanbul that in all of Greece.  The Turkish Army is larger, better trained and equipped and has more operational experience.  Shall I add that the Turkish economy and governmental institutions are much stronger too? I have travelled extensively in both countries.  You can always hear the Greeks bad mouthing the Turks, but rarely do hear the turks bad mouthing Greeks.  I once pointed this out to a Turkish gentlemen and he said, "we like Greek people, we eat the same things, we listen to the same music and we like to drink the same alcohol. We even have the same faces! Look Turkey is bordered eight countries, including Syria, Iraq and Iran, you really think we worry about Greece?"  He also pointed out that both Greece and Turkey are members of NATO.

That said, Constantinople was Greek, at least demographically until post the WWI "population exchanges" traded balkan Muslims for Orthodox Christians.  This was the major result of the Greek Kingdom's disasterous decision to fight Britian's proxy war against Kemal Ataturk's nascent Turkish Republic.  They were soundly defeated, and utterly humiliated by Ataturk's army.

The modern Greek state, like most Balkan Counties, owes its existence more to the intervention of the "Great Powers" into Osmanli affairs, than to their own efforts.  Britian, France and Russia created the Hellenic Kingdom as a rump state and placed an European Princeling on its throne.  Its expansion in the early twentieth century was made possible by the effectiveness of the Serbian and Bulgarian Armies in engaging and defeating the main Ottoman armies in Thrace and Macedonia which left the area around Thessaloniki mostly undefended during the First Balkan War.  Further expansion of the Kingdom was through adjustments made by the Victorious Powers after WWI (Bulgarian Aegean Thrace) and and WWII (the Italian Dodecanese), rather than military actions by the Greek Army itself. This is not to say that Greeks didn't show great heroism in fighting against the Turks in Europe and Asia Minor, or against the Italians at the beginning of WWII* or the German occupation later in that war.

The Greek Army's junta also initiated a disasterous coup against the government of Archibishop Markarios in a foolhardy attempt to annex Cyprus  This resulted in the invasion of the Turkish Army and the division that lasts until today.  

No. The only way our Greek brothers are ever going to get back Istanbul, is if somebody else gives it to them.  

* A truly brilliant victory over Fascist Italy in the mountains of Albania.

[Mor Ephrem]

Reminder: NO POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS in the public fora.  That includes this section.

If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George. 

[Strongylocentrotus]

Reminder: NO POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS in the public fora.  That includes this section.

If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.  

Okay sorry, I thought I was addressing History not Politics.

[NicholasMyra]

St. Gregory Palamas was a philosopher as well as a hesychast. His 150 Chapters contains an intriguing philosophical polemic in favor of the Divine Energies doctrine.

[biro]

St. Gregory Palamas was a philosopher as well as a hesychast. His 150 Chapters contains an intriguing philosophical polemic in favor of the Divine Energies doctrine.

Is this available anywhere online, for free or reasonably cheap? 

[pensateomnia]

Elder Paisios from the Holy Mt. Athos.  He was also a excellent scripture interpreter and predicts one day that Constantinople will again be Greek.

The wheels of history are always turning. If it happens in any distant future that Turkey is weaker than Greece in economy and defense and the world geopolitics is such that the other countries couldn't care less, Greece would invade Turkey.

I'd say that Elder Paisios is not a philosopher.

He most certainly is not.

In addition to some of the philosophers mentioned above, if one wants contemporary philosophers, see Sergey Horuzhy and Christos Yannaras. Both blur the lines between philosophy and theology.

[Strongylocentrotus]

St. Gregory Palamas was a philosopher as well as a hesychast. His 150 Chapters contains an intriguing philosophical polemic in favor of the Divine Energies doctrine.

Is this available anywhere online, for free or reasonably cheap? 

maybe here: http://books.google.com/books/about/The_One_Hundred_and_Fifty_Chapters.html?id=hS5LJkFMdOIC

[biro]

St. Gregory Palamas was a philosopher as well as a hesychast. His 150 Chapters contains an intriguing philosophical polemic in favor of the Divine Energies doctrine.

Is this available anywhere online, for free or reasonably cheap? 

maybe here: http://books.google.com/books/about/The_One_Hundred_and_Fifty_Chapters.html?id=hS5LJkFMdOIC

Thank you.

[NicholasMyra]

St. Gregory Palamas was a philosopher as well as a hesychast. His 150 Chapters contains an intriguing philosophical polemic in favor of the Divine Energies doctrine.

Is this available anywhere online, for free or reasonably cheap?  

maybe here: http://books.google.com/books/about/The_One_Hundred_and_Fifty_Chapters.html?id=hS5LJkFMdOIC

Thank you.

And you definitely want that Sinkewicz version; it's the scholarly one.

[Gunnarr]

What exactly is "Orthodox Philosophy" anyway?

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

What exactly is "Orthodox Philosophy" anyway?

Indeed, this is the question. I would argue that every Orthodox Christian is a philosopher, in the sense that upon baptism every Orthodox Christian is empowered and called to prophesy the Orthodox Christian Faith. And I don't know how we can divorce theology and prophesy. Orthodox theology is the purest philosophy, because it affirms divine truth. Philosophy divorced from Orthodox theology is a fool's errand. I think that some Orthodox fathers have argued that philosophy is incompatible with Orthodoxy, I guess because of the dangers of too much reliance on rational thought. But if philosophy is defined simply as "world view," then everyone has a philosophy - whether they realize it or not. But I think the scarcity of "Orthodox philosophers" is probably a good thing. The RC and evangelical world is littered with "Christian philosophy," and as we know, most of it is quite unorthodox.


Selam

[pensateomnia]

What exactly is "Orthodox Philosophy" anyway?

The OP's question was about Orthodox philosophers, not Orthodox philosophy.

Read some Lev Karsavin, Nikolai Berdyaev, Nikolay Lossky, Georges Florovsky, Sergey Horuzhy, or Christos Yannaras, and you will get the idea. All rely on elements of patristic theology and the Orthodox tradition in developing a systematic approach to problems in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, philosophical hermeneutics, etc.

[Orest]

Greetings and God bless,

Would anyone happen to know any good (yet accessible) philosophers who hold the Orthodox faith that would be worth reading?  Thank you for your time.  

I think this article is a good place to start:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/12/the-orthodox-renaissance

Some of the modern Orthodox scholars mentioned are more philosophers than theologians.

[Fabio Leite]

Greetings and God bless,

Would anyone happen to know any good (yet accessible) philosophers who hold the Orthodox faith that would be worth reading?  Thank you for your time.  

I think this article is a good place to start:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/12/the-orthodox-renaissance

Some of the modern Orthodox scholars mentioned are more philosophers than theologians.

The strand of "theology" that is emerging from these groups, like Volos, is an unfortunate attempt to create a "progressive" global "Orthodoxy" in contrast with the traditional Orthodox practice of being in the nation without belonging to it. Volos in particular seeks a progressive "Orthodoxy" that is not related to the nation but still related to the State. Basically the Soviet Red Church hellenized and globalized.

They want to be "creative", they want to be accepted in the circles of the global intelligentsia, walk among the respected powers of the world.

It's globalism trying to "eat" Orthodoxy. They will fail but will take many souls with them.

[KostaC]

In addition to some of the philosophers mentioned above, if one wants contemporary philosophers, see Sergey Horuzhy and Christos Yannaras. Both blur the lines between philosophy and theology.

As someone who studies neither philosophy nor theology, I really can't tell where one ends and the other begins. Can anyone explain it to me if they have the time?

[Fabio Leite]

In addition to some of the philosophers mentioned above, if one wants contemporary philosophers, see Sergey Horuzhy and Christos Yannaras. Both blur the lines between philosophy and theology.

As someone who studies neither philosophy nor theology, I really can't tell where one ends and the other begins. Can anyone explain it to me if they have the time?

In Orthodoxy there is a great emphasis in distinguishing between Theology, Academic Theology and Philosophy.

Academic Theology is seen as "just" Philosophy discussing about divine subjects.

Philosophy itself would be a human effort to acquire unity of knowledge in the unity of consciousness (and vice-versa). Thus, the philosopher seeks to increase the coherence of both his soul and of his knowledge through the improvement of each (knowledge and consciousness) helping the improvement of the other. Or in a few words, philosophy is a human effort to become a better person and know better.

Theology for Orthodoxy, is the description of the experience of God by those who've had it. So if the person who had the experience of God has poetic leanings, theological discourse can be very poetical - think the book of Revelation. If the person is a common-sense, feet on the ground kind of person, it can be very brief, dry and to the point. Think Gospel of Mark. If the person is more "scientific", liking details, it can have several  descriptions and confirmations in other sources. Think Gospel of Luke. And so on for each "kind" of person. But theology is basically about describing to the best of your own capacities and language your first-hand experience of God.

Scholars can get what theologians wrote and said and study it philosophically. Than you get Academic Theology.

[Orest]

But I believe modern theologians have been a bit too much on the opposite side exchanging the ethnophiletism of particular nations for the ethnophiletism of globalism, the nationality of the global state in construction. Symbolic of that is the theological school of Volos who wants Orthodoxy in Greece to detach itself from the Greek nationality but not from the state. They want to be global citizens but still have all the privileges of being government employees of Greece.

Can you elaborate in the values of the theological school of Volos you mention.
Do you mean the Faculty of Theology at the University of Thessaly?  What is wrong with it?   
http://www.uth.gr/en/static/miscdocs/Study_Guide_20110411.pdf

[KostaC]

In Orthodoxy there is a great emphasis in distinguishing between Theology, Academic Theology and Philosophy.

Academic Theology is seen as "just" Philosophy discussing about divine subjects.

Philosophy itself would be a human effort to acquire unity of knowledge in the unity of consciousness (and vice-versa). Thus, the philosopher seeks to increase the coherence of both his soul and of his knowledge through the improvement of each (knowledge and consciousness) helping the improvement of the other. Or in a few words, philosophy is a human effort to become a better person and know better.

Theology for Orthodoxy, is the description of the experience of God by those who've had it. So if the person who had the experience of God has poetic leanings, theological discourse can be very poetical - think the book of Revelation. If the person is a common-sense, feet on the ground kind of person, it can be very brief, dry and to the point. Think Gospel of Mark. If the person is more "scientific", liking details, it can have several  descriptions and confirmations in other sources. Think Gospel of Luke. And so on for each "kind" of person. But theology is basically about describing to the best of your own capacities and language your first-hand experience of God.

Scholars can get what theologians wrote and said and study it philosophically. Than you get Academic Theology.

Thank you very much for your explanation; it was very helpful.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Faith Issues (Moderator: Mor Ephrem) > Topic: Orthodox Philosophers