https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_OLom4lvdA
Orthodox FAQ's for atheists and Catholics, among others: http://pastebin.com/bN1ujq2x
This thread is about two issues, one is the incoherence of materialism, the other is the Roman Catholic conception of transubstantiation, and they sort of tie together. First, pertaining to materialism, if you reject the existence of noumena, you would be suggesting that phenomena is all that exists, which would make you an idealist. Now if you believe that in the reality of noumena, then you cannot be a materialist, since a noumenon is synonymous with a thing-in-itself, which is something metaphysical. So how do materialists get around this?
Second, to address transubstantiation (accidents-substance seems to be to parallel phenomenon-noumenon): do Catholics hold "substance" to be material or spiritual? The Orthodox hold ousia, which roughly corresponds to substance (one ousia/substance) to be spiritual rather than material. If the Catholics say that substance is metaphysical, then they obviously left the backdoor open for Protestant theology of the Eucharist, since they are suggesting it is not physically Christ's Body and Blood, just metaphysically. But if they say substance is a physical quality, then it becomes incorrect to say there is one substance called "God" shared by all three persons of the Trinity. But if you say it can be either, then there is an issue, because being that we are not Gniostics or Nestorians or any of that, we'll agree that Christ's Body is Christ, maybe not *all* of Christ, but definitely 100% Christ, not an accessory to Christ. Yet as far as I know, Roman Catholics confess that Christ had but *two* substances, human (that is his human soul) and divine (God)...if you say that his Body and Blood had a substance distinct from his human soul, then you are saying he has at least THREE substances.
cont
>>792541
Now, the more learned Catholics might point out that an Orthodox Council affirmed transubstantiation, but in rejoinder I must point out that
A: Most important, this is tu quoque, which doesn't resolve anything.
B: That council (which has never been recognized as Ecumenical) was basically a hurried reaction, because we had an Ecumenical Patriarch (Cyril Lucaris) who tried to make the Church Protestant and proliferated a confession that said Christ's Body and Blood are just a ceremony and not actually his Body and Blood. So the term "transubstantiation" was employed to make it absolutely clear that the Church rejected the Protestant conception of the Eucharist. It was employed specifically because Cyril Lucaris used it (in Greek, see the following point) to refer to the idea that the Eucharist was more than a remembrance. So the point was to explicitly and overtly contradict him so as to leave no doubt whatsoever.
C: That council's terminology is almost never employed today, because it has zero precedent with the Church Fathers, and unless there is precedent with the Church Fathers, something cannot be dogma. That doesn't make the term heretical, but you see what I mean, here is an article on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metousiosis The term the Orthodox commonly used, and is attested by the Church Fathers, is "metamorphosis" ("transformation" would be the Latin equivalent).
FINIS
>>792541
>since they are suggesting it is not physically Christ's Body and Blood, just metaphysically.
since when is the metaphysical opposed to the physical?
>That council's terminology is almost never employed today
it was used before, that you changed your own understanding is your problem, not mine
>>792564
>since when is the metaphysical opposed to the physical?
They aren't opposed, but they are distinct. Or do you disagree?
>it was used before
For a particular teleos
>>792572
>>792573
they build upon each other
So is belief established according to circumstances?
>>792586
>the truth is edgy
I'm sorry you stupid fucking Greeks thought not paying your debts and going back on your agreements with the crusaders would have no consequences a few years after killing 70,000 Latins
>>792587
>they build upon each other
You aren't actually engaging the question.
>So is belief established according to circumstances?
No, since the belief hasn't changed. We're talking purely about terminology. The issue is that the terminology doesn't optimally express the belief.
>I don't want to get unnecessary attention, so I'll remove my trip
>I'll keep posting the same types of threads in the same style and link to my written FAQs though
>but don't pay attention to me~
Constantine really is a girl.
>>792596
Don't you mean 70,000,000?
Ok Orthodox Spamming, I get it, you gotta sell the product.
But why the attack on Materialism, isn't that kind of admitting that you have some chip on your shoulder to prove? It throws up a lot of red flags right off the bat.
If I were you I'd play up the Tradition Is Fun angle and lose the wierdo complaining vibe.
>>792611
Posts like that are why your fair city was raped and left to the T*rks
Fucking Greeks 600 years later still haven't learned from their mistakes
>>792541
>First, pertaining to materialism, if you reject the existence of noumena, you would be suggesting that phenomena is all that exists, which would make you an idealist.
Explain further.
>>792616
Why don't you start a thread on it instead of posting about it here?
Who are some contemporary philosophers who defend materialism?
>>792619
Phenomena is what we behold. If you are saying there is nothing beyond what is seen and felt and thought, then you're saying reality is comprised of perceptions, not material substance.
>>792621
Because this is the designated shitposting thread
It's got this here certificate
>>792628
>Phenomena is what we behold
Perception is what we behold. Phenomena is that which can be perceived.
>>792600
>You aren't actually engaging the question.
what question? your thread is just a bait and switch, pretending to address materialism while doing anti-Catholic polemics in reality.
Pro-tip: saying two issues "tie together" doesnt make it so.
So will you act against your own council by claiming the council didnt optimally express the belief? I know you consider the council to not be ecumenical, but since it is a council that has been considered authoritative and in-line with Orthodox teaching through the ages (even if it is being doubted today), one should at least assent intellectually to the council's opinion. And the council's opinion is that "transubstantiation" expresses Orthodox belief, an opinion that hasnt been challenged by another council, as far as i know (maybe by several writers, but a particular opinion is not the Orthodox opinion)
>>792627
It's the go to position really.
The general state is that idealism does a good job of explaining social and cultural reality while the body and non-living things are explained by material properties.
My personal belief is that the spiritual side is subset of the idealistic side.
>>792640
Which still leaves you defining reality according to perception.
>>792645
I think the council used the best term as the time for its specific purpose, which was to definitively rule against the Protestant conception of the Eucharist. The function of the term "transubstantion" is not so much positive, as to affirm what the Eucharist is *not*, which is the Protestant conception. This was done to ensure future Cyrils wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
The Orthodox opinion is define solely by Holy Tradition, witness in Scripture and the Church Fathers and whatever else is passed down. No council has any authority to express an Orthodox opinion beyond this. The term "transubstantion" can be employed, but it is not the "definitive" Orthodox term, since the Church Fathers used "transformation". The purpose of the term "transubstantiation" is emphasize a clear contradistinction in the Orthodox conception of the Eucharist in relation to the Protestant conception. But because it was not used by the Church Fathers, it is not ,nor ever can be, the definitive term.
I'm not going to continue to address your questions unless you actually start addressing the ones directed at you.
>>792716
>Which still leaves you defining reality according to perception.
That's fine.
>>792734
But that's idealism, the idea that the substance of reality is perception rather than matter.
>>792737
Ok.
>>792741
If you aren't a materialist, then this thread isn't really critiquing you.
>>792737
When you say that reality is a perception the distinction between idealism and materialism is blurred.
It's not that there is some thing in itself out there which is the material reality. Perception is both idealism and material. The very concept of 'material' can only be understood through having a perspective as can the concept of 'idealism'. Both are subsets of the same perspectivist world.
>>792753
Maybe there is a physical universe which provides the consistent phenomena that we observe. So it's both Materialist and Idealist.
>>792716
>The function of the term "transubstantion" is not so much positive, as to affirm what the Eucharist is *not*, which is the Protestant conception.
this doesnt make any sense, how is endorsing a particular term "not positive"?
>The Orthodox opinion is define solely by Holy Tradition, witness in Scripture and the Church Fathers and whatever else is passed down.
And the council has been considered through history to express all of these
>The term "transubstantion" can be employed, but it is not the "definitive" Orthodox term
now youre moving the goalposts, since your problem with transubstantiation was that it doesnt optimally express the belief, why would you consider it "appropiate" if it doesnt express the belief well.
I dont know how to address your question, since you use a lot of different terms interchangeably and incorrectly, like "material/spiritual" and "physical/metaphysical", framing substance in terms of "quality", etc.
Moreover I wasnt trying to address your question in the first place, just pointing out the inaccuracies in your framing of the question.
>>792784
In this case it's just physical though.
>>792784
What I am saying is I don't see how it has to be one or the other.
The chair I am sitting on is material. I know this by perception. The concept of chair is idealism, and I also know this by some perception.
I can refer both to the specific chair I am sitting on and the general idea of a chair.
>>792838
Do you subscribe to dualism?
Now I'm slightly disappointed.
I thought this was a ghazali thread based on the first two words
>>792843
I intentionally alluded to him, sorry to let you down.
>>792824
You dont? Why?
concepts like causation, hylemorphism, essence, existence, etc belong to metaphysics, but I wouldnt consider causation to be "spiritual". Of course you havent clarified on what you mean by those terms
>>792824
>A thing-in-itself is physical?
Sure.
>>792850
By "material" I mean composed of matter, energy (as the term is used in physics) or space-time.
Causation is very spiritual. Without the spiritual, how is "real" time not eternalist?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)
The Orthodox see all root causes as agency, free-will, which is of course spiritual: If causation were not spiritual, then how could God have caused creation?
>>792853
Since a thing-in-itself is that which is cannot perceived by material probing, that doesn't really make sense.
>>792881
>Since a thing-in-itself is that which is cannot perceived by material probing, that doesn't really make sense.
Well they are your words, don't blame me.
If you can detect it with your senses or with an instrument, then obviously it's "physical" in the sense of matter or energy.
>>792889
If you could, then it would not be a noumenon, it would be a phenomenon.
>>792842
No. Dualism implies that material and idealism are fundamentally different things. They are just different lenses for viewing the same thing.
For instance I could say that the chair I am sitting on has an idealism form in that there is the 'idea of it'. I could also say that the general concept of chair has a materialistic form since it refers to a set of material items.
The universe simply 'is'. Humans make distinctions about what is material, what is idealism, what is up, what is down. These distinctions are nessary for us to have concepts of identity, for us to function, for us to even say "I exist".
My view is that I am capable of switching between a materialistic and an idealistic lens.
>>792897
Would anything be true if perceptive creatures were not around?
>>792881
what do you mean by spiritual? immaterial? if so, then how is causation immaterial?
>>792895
That's fine.
>>792908
What is causation comprised of? Causation, for the Orthodox, is will. Nothing happens without some will behind it, be it God's, an angel's, a demon's, a human's, etc.
>>792915
Then were kind of back to the point that if you consider reality comprised purely of phenomena, then you'd be an idealist.
>>792928
Your definitions don't seem very useful.
>>792966
How would you prefer to define idealist?
>>792925
So, you are an occasionalist?
What do you think of Said Nursi's expansions on Ghazali's work?
I would explain, but typing on a phone is annoying.
>>792903
Most things would not be 'true' or 'false'. For instance the statement "that chair exists" presupposes that the chair is a distinct thing seperate from everything else around it. That the shape of the wood it is in is different than the shape of wood of something else. When you zoom in at the micro-level everything is just made up of a few elements and when you zoom in even further it's all just energy.
Without human distinction, all reality ends up getting swallowed in a big monoism. Even something as simple as the statement "I exist" requires the idea that there are 'parts' of the universe and that some of these parts can be considered part of a set called a 'living thing' and that one each 'living thing' is it's own 'individual'.
Reality is always being understood through a perspective and in a way we literally create the universe by how we perceive it. Even something as basic as 'what does it mean to be alive' is a created perception: consider abortion or the discussion of whether advanced ai would count as 'alive'.
>>792541
>First, pertaining to materialism, if you reject the existence of noumena, you would be suggesting that phenomena is all that exists, which would make you an idealist. Now if you believe that in the reality of noumena, then you cannot be a materialist, since a noumenon is synonymous with a thing-in-itself, which is something metaphysical. So how do materialists get around this?
The whacky bullshit that religious people talk to try and validate their claims is hilarious.
>hurr durr your an idealist therefore a creator of the universe exists and he turned himself into a carpenter and had himself executed, checkmate!
>>793040
Yeah, I'm not sure why idealism opens the flood gates to more of Constantine's bullshit. Obviously materialists see value in ideas, existing and functioning at all obviously requires it. Materialists just acknowledge that ideas are nothing more than ideas; being able to think something implies nothing just by virtue of thinking it.
>>793055
>Nice strawman.
But it's not. Literally everything Constantine posts comes back to him trying to justify Orthodoxy. EVERYTHING. Because he is a fanatical narcissist.
>>793055
What kind of truth-bearers do you have in mind?
>>793064
But it is, because I never made any such argument that idealism necessarily entails Orthodox Christianity.
>>793069
The truth of reality, for instance.
>>793055
>Nice strawman.
There's no strawman being made, this thread is openly proselytising for Orthodox Christianity, we all know perfectly well what the actual argument being made here is.
It's the same every time. Try and make abstract philosophical arguments about the nature of reality so you can justify making up stuff.
>>793064
*she tbqfhwy (2(to) be quite frankly honest with you)
>>793070
There's such a thing as an implied argument. Literally everything you post is an attempt to justify Orthodoxy, ergo everything you say is an argument that can be summed as "because this, you should become Orthodox."
>>793073
What does 'reality' encompass and how is it true or false?
>>793055
There is not conceivable reality outside of perception. To even contemplate is to use a perception.
>>793101
That depends on how materialists define "truth" and "reality", I suppose.
>>793103
You can contemplate something without perceiving it, via semiotics.
