A bit off topic but you gave such a good answer to my last question that I have another one about your work. It is a dream of mine to visit Mt. Athos one day!
I recently read your paper on the Eastern view of the Soul and listened to your interview about the topic on "Closer to Truth". I find it gets a little fuzzy trying to map modern philosophy of mind positions exactly onto pre-modern views but I'll give it a shot.
To start with, I agree with David Bentley Hart that in the times of the OT, NT, and the Patristics "none of them thought like Cartesians". It's not like oil and water squeezed into the same bottle. As far as I can tell, this is correct and a step in the right direction. In your Closer to Truth interview you mention that the Eastern Fathers recognize a distinction between an organic body and "the life of the body" because dead (organic) bodies can exist. So this "life", this "self", would be the soul, so called. You call us embodied beings. Quickly, I can also say I agree with your comments on the non-asiety of the soul and that it is held in existence by God. Now, I didn't do a compare-and-contrast with your paper on Universal Hylomorphism and the interview, so if I get any particulars wrong please let me know, but I also recently read Fr. Christopher Knight's book on Orthodoxy and Modern Science and he takes, also mentioning biblical and patristic views, what appears to be either a broadly "non-reductive physicalist" or "Holistic" account of the person who's "self" is then held in existence by God after death, awaiting the Resurrection. This seems to be in line with your comments in the interview?
Very thorough examination of the topic. I imagine I'll be chewing on this for a few days.
A bit off topic but you gave such a good answer to my last question that I have another one about your work. It is a dream of mine to visit Mt. Athos one day!
I recently read your paper on the Eastern view of the Soul and listened to your interview about the topic on "Closer to Truth". I find it gets a little fuzzy trying to map modern philosophy of mind positions exactly onto pre-modern views but I'll give it a shot.
To start with, I agree with David Bentley Hart that in the times of the OT, NT, and the Patristics "none of them thought like Cartesians". It's not like oil and water squeezed into the same bottle. As far as I can tell, this is correct and a step in the right direction. In your Closer to Truth interview you mention that the Eastern Fathers recognize a distinction between an organic body and "the life of the body" because dead (organic) bodies can exist. So this "life", this "self", would be the soul, so called. You call us embodied beings. Quickly, I can also say I agree with your comments on the non-asiety of the soul and that it is held in existence by God. Now, I didn't do a compare-and-contrast with your paper on Universal Hylomorphism and the interview, so if I get any particulars wrong please let me know, but I also recently read Fr. Christopher Knight's book on Orthodoxy and Modern Science and he takes, also mentioning biblical and patristic views, what appears to be either a broadly "non-reductive physicalist" or "Holistic" account of the person who's "self" is then held in existence by God after death, awaiting the Resurrection. This seems to be in line with your comments in the interview?