Is he the only relevant, worthwhile thinker today?

Am I the only Veeky Forumsposter who read Garrigou-Lagrange?

Who?

Actually a good question.

His Theology and Social Theory is excellent. Although if he were real with himself he'd see that Anglicanism, at least his vision of it, is a lost cause, and convert to Orthodoxy as it is much, much closer to his vision of authentic Christian theology prior to the contamination (which, remarably enough, coincides with the great schism). It's true he's an Aristolean when it comes to civic concerns, but his rejection of the use of dialectic in theology in favor of mystical paradox, makes the Orthodox Church his best option. I myself converted partially because I found in it Milbank realized.

Too bad Prince Charles has his hands tied, or else would convert as well (he is a major fan of Orthodox Christianity, he uses Orthodox icons in his personal chapel and spends periods staying at Orthodox monasteries )

I saw him in a panel discussion at the LSE. He came across as boring and a ditherer.

Fuck Prince Charles.

I thought for a second this was Steve Bannon.

Then I realized it's just George Lucas.

>urgh, look, it's Steve Bannon
>wait, isn't that George Lucas

What a terrible world we live in.

>but his rejection of the use of dialectic in theology in favor of mystical paradox

is this from The Monstrosity of Christ?

Aristotelian politics rest on metaphysics. It's sorta impossible to be an aristotelian in one and not the other,

I've been trying to think of this faggot's name for the past couple months fuck

Original Christian theology isn't metaphysics in the philosophical sense of something probed strictly through reason. It's something altogether different

So where is my answer?

I don't have it, I joined your questioning.
I'll use this chance to ask who else read Garrigou-Lagrange and why he's obscure now?

No, I still can´t tolerate the shitty prequel trilogy

>Roger Scruton
>Peterson (unironically, though I guess if the intellectual was to be compared to a theologian, Peterson would be more comparable to a priest)
>Zizek

The existence of the freedom to enjoy (and refuse to enjoy) decadence is the differentiating feature of western civilization though

By that standard, the Ottomans were Western

I don't know, here's an Amazon review that makes him seem a bit to certain in his viewpoints:

"In this revised edition of John Milbank's seminal 1990 publication, a publication itself which has served as a founding document for that theological sensibility known as Radical Orthodoxy, Milbank has left largely unaltered the central thesis of the first edition. That thesis, which I explicated in a review of the first edition (For a more favorable review of the main text, please see it on amazon.com for the 1st edition), hinges around the notion of mythos and the modern/postmodern problematic and perpetual dissembling regarding secularity's own unfounded foundations. These foundations, Milbank contends, can be deconstructed into an ontology violence, best characterized by force and counterforce. Milbank wishes to lift the veil on the pretensions of reason as such ("reason in the mode of cold regard" as he calls it) by persuading that this ontology is unnecessary and, what is more, not the only one at hand. Unfortunately, the one at hand has also fallen prey to this very nihilistic ontology and this fall constitutes the modern "pathos of theology," which Milbank says is a false humility. Thus, Milbank wishes not only to invalidate modern social theory, but call into question the modern practice of theology.

cont'd

These goals remain in the revised edition. What is new is the preface in which Milbank attempts to address some of the most common criticisms of the first edition and offer "clarifications" and "a certain limited mode of apologetic" (xvi). What criticisms does Milbank address? Milbank counters what he perceives to be the predominant complaint among sociologist: that his project was one of rejecting sociological reductionism. Milbank contends that sociologists have misunderstood his point. This, however, will come as cold comfort as Milbank drives the missed point home: Milbank is not arguing against reductionism in sociology, but arguing against the whole idea of sociology itself. Milbank, as if to make this remark palatable to sociologists, remarks that "sociology is an exploded paradigm" and that the only ones who have not caught on to this are "theologians themselves--who are still so often belated" (xii). Of course, this leaves one wondering whom Milbank's audience is if most sociologists have conceded to defeat. Yet, it seems unlikely that sociologists see their discipline as an "exploded paradigm." In response to the banalities of such assertions, I merely refer Milbank to the public library or classroom sociology curriculum whose primary texts (and lectures) do not doubt the validity of their enterprise, despite (in spite?) of postmodern philosophical ramblings (can we thank the instrumentalizing of reason and specialization and concomitant compartmentalizing of knowledge for this?). Milbank seems to make a mistake similar to the first edition of TST, namely in an overestimation of consensus--there was never quite as much methodological consensus as his narrative seem to indicate nor is there now quite as much consensus that sociology is an "exploded paradigm."

Milbank notes further protests from the dialectical tradition (he has mind Gillian Rose) but reiterates that despite calls emancipation there simply is no ground of freedom and of mutual recognition of another's freedom so that there is "no surety against history resuming its sinister inventiveness" (xiii). Further protests from `left-Nietzscheanism' object to the accusation that their discourse upholds nihilism and ontological violence: Milbank says they still smuggle mode of stoicism or Kantianism because "mere formal tolerance" was not enough: "The attempt to bend their diagnoses of the historical sway of arbitrary power to the cause of `emancipation' was never truly plausible" (TST2, xiii). Also says that "the most radical thinker of difference never pretended anything other than that it was grounded in an `ontology of violence'" (xiv).

conti'd

These responses by Milbank to his critics bring to mind Robert Schreiter's own criticism that not only is Milbank's approach "shocking in its repudiation of modernity" but that it is "sometimes a little annoying in its dismissive tone." The dismissive tone elides into clarifications and a limited mode of apologetic when Milbank addresses another salient critique of his work (and, by implication, Radical Orthodoxy): that Milbank's narrative itself is yet another manifestation of violence."....

It's a good review, and I'm persuaded by it, but I'll probably put some of of this Milbank chap in the queue, probably this book and the Zizek one.

Imagine if one of the Royals converted. I think it would be a potent and symbolic act. I give up my earthly titles, rights and riches, which are nothing in the face to the world to come.
The law would probably be amended to let monarchs be non-anglican christians and muslims and shit immediately after that though

That's George Lucas if I'm not mistaken

Famous for his role in the creation of the Star Wars film franchise

Original theology heavily rests on metaphysics, unless it stopped being original by 130 AD.

That would be a very big problem because the King/Queen of England is the official head of the Church of England, AKA the worldwide Anglican Community. It would cause a major crisis.

hey nick land is cool

Agreed

sure. recognizing that is different from doubling down on the supposed virtue and necessity of teenie bopper softcore porn concerts, and broadcasting that as the consensus

>Original theology heavily rests on metaphysics
Nah. Augustine and Martyr were the only ancient saints who rested their theology on philosophical metaphysics (and Augustine only does that in his discursive work)

a challenger approaches

>A spectre is haunting the Western world--the spectre of religion.

This guy is savage.

literally just Derrida/Heidegger except Sloterdijk is a massive cuck and backtracks on every mildly controversial statement he makes when accosted by a liberal journalist

theres a couple youtube videos where he's basically about to cry

sloterdijk has no original ideas of his own and he definitely has no balls

*blocks your shitstorm*

Are you the shanzai guy from that thread the other day? I've never heard of this guy, but I'm looking up his stuff and it all looks interesting.

I'm American, so the German intellectual climate is totally alien to me. Do Sloterdijk and Han have public disagreements?

>pro EU

And dropped

Aristid, Athanasius, Antenagora and Origen as well relied on metaphysics.

Origen is a heretic, and if you read Athanasius you'd see his theology doesn't use philosophical metaphysics. You probably just think it does because he used the term "ousia" (substance) in the Creed, but according to the Cappadocian Fathers, that's just a term for kind. Like a redwood's substance is tree and Max's substance is dog, that's not really philosophical metaphysics. We say one God rather that three because God functions as one (Christ says he does nothing of himself but only does what the Father does)

I don't know the other two

Origen is a father who erred in certain elements, dismissing him as a simple heretic would be wrong.
The term substance isn't just a simple term he used, it has a very specific meaning, taken from Aristote that he used intentionally, as opposed to other terms he might have replaced it with. Substance is closer to identity in our contemporary wording and it makes a difference to say God is consubstantial and not conessential or something of the sort because it means not only a definition, but a real existence.

Origen is 100% worthless and only contaminated theology.

Essence and substance are the same, yes. I would not equate either with existence since existence is hypostasis

The fact that many see him as a Church Father, recently and most notably Benedict XVI, we can't speak of him as a worthless contaminator of theology.

And essence and substance are not the same thing. Essence is an abstract category of that which something is, substance that which it is made of, which is not just an accident. We are both humans and share an essence, but we don't share a substance because we are not the same entity.

I'm Orthodox and you have to be a saint to be a Church Father for us

Essence is a literal translation of ousia. The West chose to translate ousia as substance though.

Is he the One?

I kind of got that you are from your philosophical illiteracy.

Who are these people again?

Land is a fucking genius, fuck off kid.

I enjoy Land myself but he isn't really a genius and you just got really buttblasted.