Anselm's view of theology as "Faith seeking understanding" seems to capture this somewhat, at least as far as our proper orientation toward philosophy. But I find thinking of truth as a person to be helpful in a challenging way. Thanks for this.

Thank you for your careful articulation of the relation philosophy has with theology! This channel is really helping me ti understand Orthodoxy. I’ll be checking out more of your videos. God bless. ⛪️

Thank you 🤍☦️🤍 from Amsterdam

Philosophy as handmaiden to Theology is a much better, need I say more coherent, answer to philosophy's domineering character than Laruelle's nonsense. Thanks again. Really enjoying your channel!

Thank you. I think this really confirmed alot of my intuitions in regards to philosophy and how it relates to faith and theology in a pretty concise and understandable format. Will be really be insightful for a friend of mine I think and will eventually share with him when I get the chance. Christ bless you tremendously. Glad to have just found this channel. ☦︎︎

Is Freedom a quality of God? Great video.

Kierkegaard, who formulated the leap of faith best describes this relation that you mentioned of the leap of faith. Why not mention him?

That was very articulate and meticulous in the way Orthodox thinking often is. I disagree with this characterization of philosophy, but I recognize some important points being made, points that I think philosophy needs to come to terms with. Here are a few comments: It's not clear to me why philosophy is incomplete but theology is complete. I mean that while it is true that philosophy has changed and morphed in strange ways down through the centuries, the same can be said for theology; I think that especially applies to post-Reformation theology. In other words I think both face the same dilemma of incompleteness, though probably differently placed. // One of the difficulties in discussions of this kind is that there is a natural tendency to view classical and ancient philosophy through the assumptions of modernist philosophy (say post-17th century). Doing this fundamentally alters what ancient philosophy was about. Pierre Hadot wrote about this in several books. For example, I don't think Plato, or his tradition, was rationalist. Plato used metaphor, allegory,, and other strategies of comparison extensively; I would argue that Plato was primarily an allegorical thinker and that logic in an analytic sense, was used by Plato to unpack the allegories. I would make the same claim for Aristotle, though I know that is a harder case to make. // I think that to understand an ancient philosophy like Platonism you need to see it through what I call a 'Dharmic' lens because Platonism was not just 'pure rationality' and thinking, it was first and foremost a way of life, and a way of relating to ultimate reality. In other words Platonism is more like the Indian traditions of Hinduism and Jainism, etc., than it is like modernist philosophy. // The most important divergence from your presentation for ancient philosophy is that ancient philosophy saw itself as salvific, as Dharmic traditions do. I understand that Orthodoxy does not accept that, and you have presented the Orthodox view of this relationship between Philosophy and Theology skillfully. Perhaps my comments might help to clarify the position of ancient philosophy in this matter. // Thanks for posting this.

I get the impression that what you're referring to when you say "philosophy" seems to be referring to a specific type of philosophy. It seems to me to be referring to the type of "philosophy" that says knowledge stops at discursive reason/dianoia. To that extent I agree. I'm not so sure if this applies to philosophical systems like Platonism or even Pythagoreanism. Although I guess it can also be pointed out that both of those are also essentially mystical in nature so they probably are not what people have in mind when they use the word "philosophy".

Can you do an honest review of that Ikea chair? I sat on one of those for about 4 years and hated every day but I was too stingy to buy a better one.

W Video man. I just wanted to learn about phlisophy so you know, my freind sent m ethis.

Reason is subordinate to Faith, as if one doesn't have faith in experience (whether self referential or communal) there is no trusting ones reason. So therefore in order to think rationally, one has to have faith in their conscious experience which produces rational thought; moreover I'd argue that this Faith is naturally in all humans, so therefore Faith is in all people but the difference is where we put our faith. So we either put our faith in ourself, humanity, the world and all it's things, or in God and the things that are of Him. PS: if you read all of this, thank you. Also gotta say how interesting it is that so many converts to Orthodoxy have been atheists at one point as I was, albeit my viewpoints were back and forth all the time until my conversion.

I checked out Florensky and I may be wrong but he seems to have this notion that ousia and hypostasis are not really distinctions, but something we as humans use to point at the mystery of communion. Otherwise we'd risk sounding tritheistic. Like I said, I could be wrong but I just don't see that tension in the Fathers.

According to pantheiam and their spiritual texts does each and every soul stays immortal or exists for eternal time? Does anyhow any soul gets escape from eternal existen? Please reply 🙏

Philosophy at some point becomes self referential