Question for the more theologically-minded users here

And yet, the elaborate made up systems biologists made result in the medicine you take, and the elaborate made up systems of chemists allowed for the device you made your post with to exist.

What are the fruits of the elaborate made up systems of the metaphysicists?

>What are the fruits of the elaborate made up systems of the metaphysicists?

Computer programing and mathematics mainly.

Orthodox theology is presumes you subscribe to Christianity: from there, it philosophizes. If you don't, that's something else. Orthodox theology is not about rationally proving the Christian narrative. There is apologetics, but this is more in the realm of proving Christianity is consistent, as opposed to proving Christianity per se.

Adding on to this most fields of sciences - including the method itself stem from philosophical inquiry.

Be specific and explain how. For example, cell theory and its contribution to understanding the human body as a system, and the periodic table leading to a nuanced understanding of how and why the properties of elements vary, contributing to materials science and allowing for the design of semi-conductors and chips.

If you accept the frame work of Eastern Orthodox Christianity completely it provides you with information on how to live within these axioms.

However its important realise that its not so much about investigation as much as repeating and learning the arguments made under the Orthodox hierarchy.

So in this context alone its not conjecture

>as much as repeating and learning the arguments made under the Orthodox hierarchy.
Orthodox theology is not about memorizing arguments any more than Confucianism is.

>Be specific and explain how.

The logic gates used by computers is literally the applied logic of philosophers - take a look at the work done by the analytic school for instance or the work of Godel or Russel who demonstrated the limitations of programing.

>Orthodox theology is not about memorizing arguments any more than Confucianism is.

I meant it in the sense that investigation in Orthodox Theology is simply finding out what a previous figure said, the repetition comes in how it is spread.

Information doesn't grow or change, there are no seeds of inquiry only repetition.

>philosophers
Metaphysics was the question.

Look before that word

"the applied logic"

formal logic is an application of metaphysics.

No, there is inquiry, it's just more of the mystical kind. As you become more and more advanced in the Christian lifestyle and your level of prayer becomes more advanced, the better you know theology. Theology, in Orthodoxy, is ultimately not something you read, it is something you do and experience, and reading is and writing is only the tip of the iceberg. You can read ten thousand books of Orthodox theology, but if you don't put a lot of effort in, you will never know as much as someone who is illiterate but has trained for decades under and elder and put in serious effort at prayer and living the lifestyle. In fact, even understanding what you're reading takes real life practice, or else you will not really understand it.

Indeed even key subjects such as cause and effect are part of this area of inquiry

>metaphysics
Then define metaphysics.

>No, there is inquiry, it's just more of the mystical kind.

Whilst there might be personal inquiry in the way that someone when learning a song by heart inquires about it, there is none on the whole.

Far from being mystical its just about triggering the same sanctioned physical experiences just like Zen monks who cane one another during meditation.

There is no study in the sense of the field of understanding redefining boundaries or filling in gaps. Its just simple repetition of practices and ideas ad infanutum.

Hence like I said there are no seeds of inquiry only repetition. At best "inquiry" is limited to expressing the exact same ideas produced by the hireachy.

>Then define metaphysics.
The study of the first principles and axioms of reality - what exists and what properties exist

>There is no study in the sense of the field of understanding redefining boundaries or filling in gaps
No, that's because it centers on revelation. We have quite enough of that to wonder and marvel and comment about for a million more years and still not fully understand.

The inquiry, the learning, is getting to know God directly. If you don't believe in God, obviously that is not going anywhere, but if you do believe in God, it means learning things that can't even be expressed in writing.

>what exists and what properties exist
Distinguish this from physics.

>Distinguish this from physics.
Physics studies matter and motion and itself being a subset of metaphysics (hence why it has the meta)

>No, that's because it centers on revelation.
Thats kind of my point which is why its value is limited pretty much to answering questions within the East Orthodox Christian context alla >The inquiry, the learning, is getting to know God directly. If you don't believe in God, obviously that is not going anywhere, but if you do believe in God, it means learning things that can't even be expressed in writing.

Sure as long as you believe in God as solely defined and taught by the East Orthodox Christian tradition.

So the fact that baryonic matter is considered a very specific subset of what actually "exists" means most leading physics today are actually metaphysicists?

>So the fact that baryonic matter is considered a very specific subset of what actually "exists" means most leading physics today are actually metaphysicists

Not necessarily, look at it in the way that the engineer isnt necessarily and physicist or a doctor is a biologist despite both these fields having a close relationship with them.

More broadly the Judeo-Christian tradition. Once you accept that, Orthodox theology gives you solid philosophy for being the only true philosophy of that tradition.

youtube.com/watch?v=bxlFxyU38KM

You said that the difference between physicists and metaphysicists was a focus on matter and motion. Thus, "physicists" who study what was not considered matter must be studying something else under your own definitions, and as it is in the direction of the first principles it is metaphysics. if not, change your definition.

>More broadly the Judeo-Christian tradition.
The Judeo-Chrisitian tradition is extremely broad and contains all kinds of justifiable understandings and practices relating to God. Every group from the Pentacostals to the Haridi Jews has their own solid philosophy for theirs being the only true one.
>Once you accept that, Orthodox theology gives you solid philosophy for being the only true philosophy of that tradition.

Which comes back to Until you accept the axioms of Eastern Orthodox Christianity - not even Judeo-Christian or apostolic Christian - it becomes valuable.

Its for this reason why unless the OP identifies as an Orthodox Christian or a Christian who is confused but accepts the axioms of apostolic christianity Orthodox theology is not a helpful place to look to understand metaphysics.

youtube.com/watch?v=Xo6xIHKTerw

>You said that the difference between physicists and metaphysicists was a focus on matter and motion.

Yep.

>thus, "physicists" who study what was not considered matter must be studying something else under your own definitions,

Of course there are mathematicians, various kinds of philosophers studying everying from ethics to ontology, biologists and all manner of scientists both social and natural.

Metaphysics is like the universal ancestor to all our forms of inquiry.

>Of course there are mathematicians, various kinds of philosophers studying everying from ethics to ontology, biologists and all manner of scientists both social and natural.
That isn't what I asked you. I asked specifically about modern physicists studying non-matter.

>That isn't what I asked you. I asked specifically about modern physicists studying non-matter.

Sorry I missread you, I assumed that when I wrote the study of matter that others would understand that what is and is not matter would be encompassed by that.

No tradition which hasn't been in continuous practice from ancient times can really credibly claim to be from Christ, since he said his tradition would be continuously preserved by the Spirit of Truth. And all forms of Christ-denying Judaism can be ruled out, because they are completely at a loss when it comes to explaining Micah 5:2, which indicates the Messiah is God himself.

I think you need to reread that post, what you typed is akin to the hardcore materialists rambling on about how Religions cant be true because their miracles contravene the laws of nature.

No, not really. Judeo-Christian religions all accept a basic framework, and all my points are within it. What you're talking about is using points which one framework are based upon, to debunk another framework.

> What you're talking about is using points which one framework are based upon, to debunk another framework.

Lets take a look back at the materialist example I used/

"No, not really. Philosophies all accept a basic framework of reason, and all my points are within it."

If you want to prove there is no god but God and the East Orthodox Church is his messenger in the Judeo-Christian religion feel free to start a thread on it or post in one of the Christian generals rather than divert this one.

So a lawyer can become an expert in astrophysics without actually studying astrophysics, because they understand and study what is and isn't law.

>So a lawyer can become an expert in astrophysics without actually studying astrophysics, because they understand and study what is and isn't law.

Of course however when they are studying that they are doing so an astrophysicist and not a lawyer even if they lack a special piece of paper.

Begging the question isn't within the framework of reason, unless it's in the form of a postulate, in which case your a building a subframework.

>rather than divert this one.
This thread is about theology. You're asking what it's good for, and when I start to explain and defend theology, you object? Or is it rather that you object that I'm explaining and defending only one school of theology? Because "theology" is a pretty wide and nebulous field.

I didn't ask you about a piece of paper. I asked you about the two fields. The fields of law and the fields of astrophysics are separate, but a lawyer can become extremely informed in astrophysics by understanding that it is not law, yes or no?

So... What are some recent... theological... breakthroughs?

>. I asked you about the two fields. The fields of law and the fields of astrophysics are separate, but a lawyer can become extremely informed in astrophysics by understanding that it is not law, yes or no?

Oh I thought you meant as in studied at an institution. To answer your question the lawyer knowledge in astrophysics would be limited to the fact that it is not law, hence unless you want to be farily liberal with the term would not amount to much of an understanding.

>This thread is about theology.
you forgot the /metaphysics.

>Because "theology" is a pretty wide and nebulous field.

Which is the whole issue behind the OP

Structural-systematic philosophy

So if a lawyer, acting specifically in the context of their understanding as a lawyer, only understands astrophysics in an extremely general sense, you admit that your objection in , where the physicist understands non-physics in detail by understanding non-matter as opposed to the matter they "actually" study, is baseless?

Most metaphysics isn't theology, it's stuff like Hegel. There is literally no division in reality, including between being and non-being, that's not metaphysical, so I presumed that was just a facetious question and went directly to theology.

In fact, "reality" itself is a metaphysical category.

>Most metaphysics isn't theology, it's stuff like Hegel. There is literally no division in reality, including between being and non-being, that's not metaphysical, so I presumed that was just a facetious question and went directly to theology.

If you took the time to focus on something other than East Orthodox Appologetics you would have seen that that was a wrong assumption to make and that it is actually being fleshed out in this thread.

That's not a wrong assumption, because it's not an assumption, it's something that has been heavily addressed by secular philosophers since ancient Greece, and reached a crescendo with the German idealists. I've read and familiarized myself with all this years before I converted to the Orthodox Church, and Orthodox apologetics has zero to do with it because Orthodox apologetics never even touches that kind of philosophy, that's more of a Catholic thing.

> you admit that your objection in (You), where the physicist understands non-physics in detail by understanding non-matter as opposed to the matter they "actually" study, is baseless?

Not particularly given that things like time and light whilst not being matter have such intimate relationships with matter - indeed understanding them is based on the observation of matter itself.

So then, differentiate the "related" and antecedent to matter elements of reality, which we have now admitted are well within the domain of physics, from physics.

>That's not a wrong assumption

So you are saying that its not a wrong assumption to assume that the OP and posters in this thread have read and familiarised themselves with "secular philosophers since ancient Greece, and reached a crescendo with the German idealists."

>Orthodox apologetics has zero to do with it

Its like you think Im attacking you and not the diversion. Honestly you were much nicer when you didnt wear the trip around her.

>So then, differentiate the "related" and antecedent to matter elements of reality, which we have now admitted are well within the domain of physics, from physics.

Metaphysics are the questions of what reality is and isnt.

Physics is a specific area that takes some metaphysical understandings (like cause and effect, idealism vs materialism, logic ect) and applies them to the study of matter an by necessity things like space and time.

Metaphysics is the antecedent of our understanding and application of physics.

>Physics is a specific area that takes some metaphysical understandings (like cause and effect
So when physicists defy some metaphysical understanding, the Aristotelian/Aquinian definitions of cause and effect, in their investigation of quantum physics, what is occurring?

>So you are saying that its not a wrong assumption
I'm saying this is not a wrong assumption: "Most metaphysics isn't theology, it's stuff like Hegel. There is literally no division in reality, including between being and non-being, that's not metaphysical"

>Honestly you were much nicer when you didnt wear the trip around here
psst...nothing personal, kid

>what is occurring?
That the metaphysical assumptions those figures had do not align with reality which under most systems means those assumptions/points/understandings ect are not true.

Which as I pointed out the OP and a lot of people here do not understand.

>psst...nothing personal, kid
Max plz

So, in other words, we again have a problem in which a physics-based investigation of the universe both involves and supercedes a metaphysics-based understanding of the universe, if physics is able to defy meta-physics. So I ask you again, to differentiate metaphysics from physics.

>Which as I pointed out the OP and a lot of people here do not understand.
I know, but I presumed the OP did understand it and was just meme'ing, so I addressed theology. As I saw the other posts, I realized the OP was serious, but I don't really care to spend time whiteknighting metaphysics in general, since I'm mostly just interested in God. I would be happy to enjoy an espresso with someone fun and discuss metaphysical theory casually, though, but on Veeky Forums, these conversations are always confrontational and so not really enjoyable for me.

>I don't care to have a legitimate conversation unless it is specifically defending Orthodoxy
Whenever I feel bad about all the off-topic trolling your trip generates you always faithfully provide a justification for it.

Is there really anything wrong with this, though? This is the theology board.

I do have conversations about other things here, but they are less confrontations subjects. If I want to discuss more secular philosophy, I go to Veeky Forums, since this board where people who don't read philosophy go to discuss philosophy, and it's just polemical.

I actually am working on a short piece which puts Orthodox theology in the framework of German idealism, but if I ever post some of it, it will probably be on Veeky Forums, not here.

>So, in other words, we again have a problem in which a physics-based investigation of the universe both involves and supercedes a metaphysics-based understanding of the universe

It doesn't defy or supercede metaphysics though, its only using empirical knowledge to refine our understanding of certain metaphysical principles, kind of like how a chemists discoverying things werent made out of Fire, Water and Earth didnt supersede or prove physics false.

>. I would be happy to enjoy an espresso with someone fun and discuss metaphysical theory casually, though, but on Veeky Forums, these conversations are always confrontational and so not really enjoyable for me.

Well loosing the trip and modifying how you approach questions would be a good start however if you want a good discussion on metaphysics look for the poster "No true Scotus" he is a philosophy PHD student who has a very indepth knowledge of Scholastic and Analytical metaphysics and probably the nicest temperament of any poster here. He doesnt name fag though so if you want to find him a thread about Scholasticism or Duns Scotus will lure him out.

>It doesn't defy or supercede metaphysics though,
It defies and supercedes the commonly held examples of metaphysics, though. provide modern examples of metaphysics as separate from physics in order to differentiate them.

>chemists discoverying things werent made out of Fire, Water and Earth didnt supersede or prove physics false.
They invalidated the understanding of their antecedents, and chemistry in general superceded alchemy.

>why it doesn't just amount to making up elaborate systems

Exactly. That why Christian theologians are against speculating new stuff that's not grounded somewhere in scripture.

Or Patristics

But Catholics aren't really opposed to that, where do you think Purgatory came from? It's not grounded in the Fathers or in Scripture. Neither is the Catholic doctrine of supererogation.

So literally every single post you make isn't actually any good faith attempt at debate or understanding, just polemic?

You almost make me sympathize with the anti-Constantine shitposting with an attitude like that.

>not praying for the dead

>It defies and supercedes the commonly held examples of metaphysics,

Defying Aristotelian causation doesnt amount to disproving the study of reality and our understanding of it.

>modern examples of metaphysics as separate from physics in order to differentiate them.

Ethics and Free will

though. provide modern examples of metaphysics as separate from physics in order to differentiate them.

>It's not grounded in the Fathers

Tertullian

"We offer sacrifices for the dead on their birthday anniversaries [the date of death—birth into eternal life]" (The Crown 3:3 [A.D. 211]).

"A woman, after the death of her husband . . . prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, she offers the sacrifice" (Monogamy 10:1–2 [A.D. 216]).

John Chrysostom

"Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice [Job 1:5], why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them" (Homilies on First Corinthians 41:5 [A.D. 392]).

Gregory of Nyssa

"If a man distinguish in himself what is peculiarly human from that which is irrational, and if he be on the watch for a life of greater urbanity for himself, in this present life he will purify himself of any evil contracted, overcoming the irrational by reason. If he has inclined to the irrational pressure of the passions, using for the passions the cooperating hide of things irrational, he may afterward in a quite different manner be very much interested in what is better, when, after his departure out of the body, he gains knowledge of the difference between virtue and vice and finds that he is not able to partake of divinity until he has been purged of the filthy contagion in his soul by the purifying fire" (Sermon on the Dead [A.D. 382]).

Augustine

"That there should be some fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, through a certain purgatorial fire" (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity 18:69 [A.D. 421]).

Not at all. Most of my posts are about Orthodoxy, but not about debate, they're just about discussing the faith. They're certainly not *polemical*, I'm seldom polemical, I don't even know what gave you that idea.

The Orthodox do pray for the dead

>Defying Aristotelian causation doesnt amount to disproving the study of reality and our understanding of it.
No, but it requires you to either provide another metsphysical framework or cede ground to the physicists.

>Ethics and Free will
Differentiate the study of this from political science and psychology. Be specific.

Tertullian is a heretic.

The purging fire in Orthodox is not exactly how Catholics conceive it. We describe Communion, for instance, as a purging fire. The fire of course is God's love, which interpenetrates all of creation, and perfects man.

Augustine admits, if you read the entire paragraph, that he is purely speculating on this point and not teaching anything he learned from tradition.

No, but it requires you to either provide another metsphysical framework or cede ground to the physicists.

Physics cant function separately from metaphysics though it cant "cede ground"

>Differentiate the study of this from political science and psychology. Be specific.

You know that these as well as all form of studies come under the banner of metaphysics right? You literally cannot diveroce it from human thought.

>The purging fire in Orthodox is not exactly how Catholics conceive it

And did you know that the Orthodox the fire of Gods love is not exactly how Catholics conceive it?

The Acts of Paul and Thecla

"And after the exhibition, Tryphaena again received her [Thecla]. For her daughter Falconilla had died, and said to her in a dream: ‘Mother, you shall have this stranger Thecla in my place, in order that she may pray concerning me, and that I may be transferred to the place of the righteous’" (Acts of Paul and Thecla [A.D. 160]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"The strength of the truly believing remains unshaken; and with those who fear and love God with their whole heart, their integrity continues steady and strong. For to adulterers even a time of repentance is granted by us, and peace [i.e., reconciliation] is given. Yet virginity is not therefore deficient in the Church, nor does the glorious design of continence languish through the sins of others. The Church, crowned with so many virgins, flourishes; and chastity and modesty preserve the tenor of their glory. Nor is the vigor of continence broken down because repentance and pardon are facilitated to the adulterer. It is one thing to stand for pardon, another thing to attain to glory; it is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing; another thing at once to receive the wages of faith and courage. It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering. It is one thing, in fine, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the day of judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord" (Letters 51[55]:20 [A.D. 253]).

>Physics cant function separately from metaphysics though it cant "cede ground"
So despite the fact that physics is doing a fine job of actually exploring and defining reality, metaphysics must somehow preceed it? If so, provide an example of a metaphysical construct not availible to physicists that is still crucial to a physics based understanding. Differentiate metaphysics from physics.

>You literally cannot diveroce it from human thought.
If you are defining metaphysics as all human thought, then of course human thought has fruit.

>they're just about discussing the faith.
Yes, you just innocently post them in every and any thread without expecting anyone to actually take you up on it?

And all of your posts are polemical.

>And did you know that the Orthodox the fire of Gods love is not exactly how Catholics conceive it?
Yes, that's because Catholics neglect that God is described as being a consuming fire, both Scripturally and Patristically.

Again, all the rest of this that you posted supports Hades, but not Purgatory. Purgatory is the idea that there is a place where the dead can expiate sins. Which is really not the case, you can't expiate sins except by Christ's Blood (which also is what burns you in agony, "Behold, I approach for Divine Communion.O Maker, burn me not as I partake, For You are fire consuming the unworthy. But cleanse me from every stain." "Tremble, O man, as you behold the divine Blood.It is a burning coal that sears the unworthy.")

See Saint Isaac the Syrian: "I also maintain that those who are punished in Gehenna are scourged by the scourge of love. For what is so bitter and vehement as the punishment of love? I mean that those who have become conscious that they have sinned against love suffer greater torment from this than from any fear of punishment. For the sorrow caused in the heart by sin against love is sharper than any torment that can be. It would be improper for a man to think that sinners in Gehenna are deprived of the love of God. Love is the offspring of knowledge of the truth which, as is commonly confessed, is given to all. The power of love works in two ways: it torments those who have played the fool, even as happens here when a friend suffers from a friend; but it becomes a source of joy for those who have observed its duties. Thus I say that this is the torment of Gehenna: bitter regret. But love inebriates the souls of the sons of Heaven by its delectability."

We do believe in prayers for the dead, but we don't think the dead can "pay off their debt" once they acquit life. Saint John Chysostom says this himself in talking about prayers for the dead, saying that they can no more repent once they are dead, but that we can help.

I'm sorry if my posts are all polemical, I'll try to do better in the future.

>So despite the fact that physics is doing a fine job of actually exploring and defining reality, metaphysics must somehow preceed it? If so, provide an example of a metaphysical construct not availible to physicists that is still crucial to a physics based understanding.

Causation and empiricism - none of these can be observed and can only be inferred.

>If you are defining metaphysics as all human thought, then of course human thought has fruit.

Thats the whole point of it and why the term was co-opted by bullshit artists it is the original philosophy.

> I'll try to do better in the future

What will this entail though?

It's a surprise!

:p

It entails nothing, same as every self-righteous display of false humility Constantine trots out periodically.

>Causation and empiricism
Causation as a universal law had already been discussed as defied. And while empiracism is a philosophical construct, it has also been most supported by later observation as a useful tool, and thus as something that affects physics is not the domain of metaphysics.

>Causation as a universal law had already been discussed as defied.

Only Aristotelian causation

>And while empiracism is a philosophical construct, it has also been most supported by later observation as a useful tool,

Yeah by using judgments based on value and logic- you cant escape metaphysics. The logical positivists spent half a decade trying to do so before giving up.

>Only Aristotelian causation
So show some other form of causation that is both consistent with and separate from actual physics.

>you cant escape metaphysics
Sure I can. All I have to do is ask you to meaningfully distinguish metaphysics from physics while maintaining accuracy. So far, I've just seen the refeinition of metaphysics as all human thought.