I am chipping away at the lecture but have to stop all the time to research the premises. I am not a student dedicated to this period of theology. I don't know if I will get to a point to respond to it properly. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

The matter of "univocity" versus "equivocity" in making reference to the divine is a big deal in both western and eastern churches. Is there something you like regarding the issue?

I have seen a few publications in theology journals from Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics attempting to revive this kind of movement. What I enjoy about it is the “bridge” between east and west, an attempt to reconcile the Aristotelian-Thomist tradition with Palamism’s focus on the essence-energies distinction and deification.

There is an article I read once on Thomistic Kabala, which reminds me of this. I think Aquinas is open to an Eastern interpretation, but not all Thomas's are. They want this perfectly defined point which they call God, while anything that is God would be too hard to ever pin down with our thoughts

while anything that is God would be too hard to ever pin down with our thoughts — Gregory

I've noticed the same thing in regards to unicorns and balrogs. Just can't put my finger on them.

If the philosophy becomes based on a must-be-true "revelation" from a supernatural being.. All the philosophy in the world that tries to bolster it can't help it become true.

If the philosophy becomes based on a must-be-true "revelation" from a supernatural being.. All the philosophy in the world that tries to bolster it can't help it become true. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, that's why they've had to kill all the philosophers historically, because it's completely fabricated bullshit that deserves absolutely no attention from anyone ever again, and people were able to see that pretty clear back when Christianity was trying to contend, specifically with Epicureanism, and couldn't hang.

Yep, I think it was Baruch Spinoza who pretty much cleared the way for critical reading of the Bible and religion in general?

Spinoza argued that theology and philosophy must be kept separate, particularly in the reading of scripture. Whereas the goal of theology is obedience, philosophy aims at understanding rational truth. Scripture does not teach philosophy and thus cannot be made to conform with it, otherwise the meaning of scripture will be distorted. Conversely, if reason is made subservient to scripture, then, Spinoza argues, "the prejudices of a common people of long ago... will gain a hold on his understanding and darken it." — Spinoza Wiki Article

Yep, I think it was Baruch Spinoza who pretty much cleared the way for critical reading of the Bible and religion in general? — schopenhauer1

No, that tradition comes from Epicureans, whom the Christians straight up became murderously enraged by the fact that they couldn't overcome the rational, self-interested, inductive, and logically superior arguments.

Well, Epicureans pre-date Christians, but I can see the ones that were around after Constantine using the same methods. What I meant was, after a thousand years of Medieval dogmatism (attachment to theology and revelation as the root of philosophy), it took people like Spinoza to completely separate the two.. Even Descartes with his skepticism, and (otherwise) naturalists like Newton had God central to their own philosophies (despite their excellent mathematical and scientific work). You can see some precursors in Italian Renaissance philosophers though, like Bruno. Hobbes seemed to be pretty atheistic too. Spinoza specifically focused on Biblical revelation/history though, and its deconstruction through a critical-historical method. It was turning theology and revelation into not much more than religious anthropology.

Well, Epicureans pre-date Christians, but I can see the ones that were around after Constantine using the same methods. What I meant was, after a thousand years of Medieval dogmatism (attachment to theology and revelation as the root of philosophy), it took people like Spinoza to completely separate the two.. Even Descartes with his skepticism, and (otherwise) naturalists like Newton had God central to their own philosophies (despite their excellent mathematical and scientific work). — schopenhauer1

Every one of those individuals were directly influenced by Epicurean thought, atomism, rationality etc. that led them to produce their work. I love them all, except for their mystic bullshit, but to the degree they were not mystics, is to the very degree in which their philosophies were directly influenced by Epicurus and his philosophers. Here's you a cool example of what I'm talking about:

http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/jefflet.html

This is a letter from Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson also wrote the Contstitution.

http://classics.mit.edu/Epicurus/princdoc.html

This is the list of fundamental principles upon which Epicureanism was built, which boasted the generation of the most peaceful, non-governmental societies in history that I am aware of at this time.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Here's the first amendment, written by Jefferson, guaranteeing that the government will never violate anything on the list of those foundational Epicurean principles, and thereby guaranteeing the protection from those principles being violated.

And this is just one bit of how Epicurus is in everything that is associated with indivdualism, rationalism, anti-mysticism, self-maximization, and empiricism. Or, in other words, the primary concepts generated by Human Consciousness that reliably increase the well-being of the human race qua human race.

Yes I know most of this. I am not diminishing the influence of Epicureanism, by stating what I stated. Most educated philosophers of the Enlightenment drew from major themes in Greek philosophy. Epicureanism was one of the major schools.

I'd like to know what your thoughts are then, regarding the rivalry between the Epicureans and the Stoics. What do you think the major points of contention were and why one was closer to truth than the other. I know Stoics were also pretty influential.

Jefferson also wrote the Contstitution. — Garrett Travers

Also, as a minor point, Jefferson didn't write the US Constitution. He wasn't at the Constitutional Convention. More involved people were Hamilton, Madison, John Jay, Franklin, etc. Jefferson did help write Virginia's constitution and the main drafts of the Declaration of Independence and whose theory influenced others of that founding group.

Also, as a minor point, Jefferson didn't write the US Constitution. He wasn't at the Constitutional Convention. More involved people were Hamilton, Madison, John Jay, Franklin, etc. Jefferson did help write Virginia's constitution and the main drafts of the Declaration of Independence and whose theory influenced others of that founding group. — schopenhauer1

So sorry, I meant the Bill of Rights, and his particular views being the predicate of Madison's drafting. My apologies, absolutey correct. Damn, I haven't flubbed that hard in a while.

I'd like to know what your thoughts are then, regarding the rivalry between the Epicureans and the Stoics. What do you think the major points of contention were and why one was closer to truth than the other. I know Stoics were also pretty influential. — schopenhauer1

I would honestly say that Stoicism is little more than a derivative of Epicureanism, same as Skepticism. Basic disagreements were over what constituted happiness, as neither disagreed that pleasure and happiness were essential ethical standards, among the most important even. Stoicism was a Virtue Ethical philosophy, meaning happiness and virtue were the same, which of course isn't true. Virtue is a refinement of something in the external world that has naturally induced enough happiness out of you to pursue virtue in it, such as violin. Meaning, happiness presupposes virtue. The Stoics also believed in the acceptance of one's circumstances, in place of the active pursuit of pleasures. And, although there are going to be times when such is advisable, that should never be the initial standard. Why would you not pursue your pleasure if such was not in violation of another, or yourself, it's nonsensical. Case in point: Socrates is sentenced to death and told he can leave Athens if he desires, and with plenty of money from his friends. He stays, ends own life, and father's two bastard philosophers whose models of Ethics fails on literally its first go at broad implementation. Epicurus is threatend with the exact same charges and, valuing his life more than the clearly unjustifiable bullshit regarding "impiety," flees to a safer location and continues his philosophical inquiry, and thank fucking consciousness he did. See, unlike Socrates, Epicurus lives to return to Athens and establish what is to my knowledge, the most literarily prolific, peaceful, and prosperous communities in the history of the world, which survived for 500 years and numbered in the hundreds of thousands before they were murdered and oppressed out of existence. What sounds more reasonable, accepting one's fate like Socrates for no reason other than feelings, or regarding one's own life as more valuable than the evil that threatens you? The reason that Stoicism is not as truthful, is because it denies itself its own seeking of pleasure, regarding it as damaging. But, this isn't the case. It can be damaging, but taking things to that extreme is already regarded as not within the Epicurean ethical domain in its founding principles, which the violation of happens to be among the ONLY accusations ever brought against the Epicureans as to why they should be castigated, because no faction could best the rationalism of Epicurean thought. So, in the end Stocism has great lessons, I love them, but they're little more than a watered down version of the superior philosophy of the ancient world that has led to what prosperity we now possess.

Just about everything else were petty squabbles that Epicureanism generally covered in its basic principles.