In reply to @yellowcrane:matrix.org
> <@phret:matrix.org> well he clearly articulates gnostic and jewish thinking within philosophical language, which sounds quite like via negativa already. i'd have to look it up then the term theologia apophatike arose. so ... it say we see a beginning of that tradition in philo, maybe. hm. i am looking backwards, not sure if thats historically adaequate. what does the second question aim at? My second question regards whether Philo engages in theological argument based on reason alone or through divine dogma (or some combination of the two). Natural theology if I have it correctly is separate from revelation.

In reply to@phret:matrix.org
not in philo. there seems to be a 'synkretism' from different traditions leading to different and sometimes contradicting aproaches. when it comes to perceiving god philo is speaking of a possible positive perception, that good exists (physiko-theology) but not what god is (negative th.) which then leads to 'you shouldnt try it but you should' (in different places.) and the possibility of a positive perception of god through gods action 'revelation'

Fascinating. "Being" then must be hard to discern if God "is". Sounds like there is no positive distinction of Divine Being, and the question of how commensurate is Man and Creation with God comes up for me. Thank you for the replies and if there is anything else helpful.

you are welcome! Hans Jonas proposes (if i remember right! - don't have my notes at hand) to interprete this perceivability as being as 'hypostasis' (a bit anachronistically).

In reply to @franko193:matrix.org
Hey, can I ask you about this

In reply to@phret:matrix.org

Fascinating. "Being" then must be hard to discern if God "is". Sounds like there is no positive distinction of Divine Being, and the question of how commensurate is Man and Creation with God comes up for me. Thank you for the replies and if there is anything else helpful.

you are welcome! Hans Jonas proposes (if i remember right! - don't have my notes at hand) to interprete this perceivability as being as 'hypostasis' (a bit anachronistically).

That all human language, culture, and thought stems from one event source?

I’m not sold on it. We tend to look back and see things as though they were a distant point, yet i find there are modulations, mixes, parallel stops and starts.

Do we all genetically spring from one distant grandparent? Maybe. Is our world of thought an eternal remix of one identity super source? Unlikely. When we get bored or fear mortality we innovate . And time has provided humanity with plenty of this encouragement

When we get bored or fear mortality we innovate . And time has provided humanity with plenty of this encouragement

Actually I think our fears of mortality have turned us petty, superstitious and hostile to creativity/innovation