Well, there aren't any Cicero or "Lives of the Caesars" threads like there were in the glory days, so the religion forum is what I find most interesting.
I'm not aware of any tri-theists actually existing, either. "On Not Three Gods" was written by St. Gregory of Nyssa precisely because it was what those who held Trinitarian belief were accused of.
The problemt that I would have with saying that "God is one Being enhypostasized" would be to ask "who is this 'one Being'?" The patristic "ordo theologiae" is to start with the Persons, which is how God is revealed to us -- personally. There seems, with your formulation, to be a danger of seeing in this "Being" a personal "it" beyond and above the three "he's" of the Holy Trinity -- a "God-in-general" as Lossky put it.
If it helps, St. Athanasius, as I recall, pointed out that the essence of God is not divided up between the Persons, but rather is, in its fullness, in each of the three Persons.
I don't think that the Fathers ever spoke of human beings as sharing a single essence ("ousia") -- but only a single nature ("physis.") Thus, as you say, there is a kind of unity of Persons in the Trinity that is not shared by humans who simply share a common nature. In Christ, this is of course transformed, and we can begin to approach it -- and will particularly do so in eschaton, but we Orthodox would believe that to the extent that we participate in the life of God (exemplified by the saints), we can taste of this closer unity while here on earth (although that unity will be most acutely experienced with those in heaven...)
Good thoughts on Plato -- I knew I could depend on you. We have been discussing various matters with RCs on other threads, and one of the things that strikes me is how deeply Platonized some forms of Augustinian theology can be. It really is not a healthy mix with Christianity. To take a very random jump, your words on "Intelligence" and "Good Conversation" reminded me of the Charles Williams novel "The Place of the Lion," with its artistic portrayals of Platonism. He was supposedly a Christian, but reading that novel (which I quite enjoyed), I really felt like I was encountering a foreign, paganized Christianity.
Regarding collectivism, the key is that Platonic philosophy seems to tend to lead one to simplicity and identification. Thus, one person is not similar to another, but *is* the same person as another -- (on the same line as "mine and not mine" being said simultaneously -- "me" and "not me" are one and the same.) This is not really "individualism" as we would generally think of it, but it is atomistic, I would suppose.
Well, there aren't any Cicero or "Lives of the Caesars" threads like there were in the glory days, so the religion forum is what I find most interesting.
Now you're making me feel guilty.
I'm not aware of any tri-theists actually existing, either. "On Not Three Gods" was written by St. Gregory of Nyssa precisely because it was what those who held Trinitarian belief were accused of.
I just remembered the Collyridians, who have the distinction of introducing one of the errors in the Koran, because Mohammed mistook them for ordinary Christians.
The problemt that I would have with saying that "God is one Being enhypostasized" would be to ask "who is this 'one Being'?" The patristic "ordo theologiae" is to start with the Persons, which is how God is revealed to us -- personally. There seems, with your formulation, to be a danger of seeing in this "Being" a personal "it" beyond and above the three "he's" of the Holy Trinity -- a "God-in-general" as Lossky put it.
I think if there were a personal "it" above and beyond the Trinity, then the Three in the Trinity would be less than persons; a person who did seriously hold that view would be a modalist and would have the problem all unitarians have of explaining how God can have lacked true interpersonal relations before creation and yet not be impersonal.
I looked up Lossky, and he says something interesting here (or I think this is the person you were quoting):
As we have already observed, in expounding the dogma of the Trinity, western thought most frequently took as its starting point the one nature, and thence passed to the consideration of the three persons, while the Greeks followed the opposite course— from the three persons to the one nature. St. Basil preferred this latter way, which in conformity to Holy Scripture and to the baptismal formula which names the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, starts from the concrete. Human thought does not run the risk of going astray if it passes from the consideration of the three persons to that of the common nature. Nevertheless, the two ways were both equally legitimate so long as the first did not attribute to the essence a supremacy over the three persons, nor the second to the three persons a supremacy over the common nature."
I don't think that the Fathers ever spoke of human beings as sharing a single essence ("ousia") -- but only a single nature ("physis.")
If I define a being as that which is alive and has a distinct or unique essence (which seems as good a definition as any), this is the same thing as what I was saying.
Regarding collectivism, the key is that Platonic philosophy seems to tend to lead one to simplicity and identification. Thus, one person is not similar to another, but *is* the same person as another -- (on the same line as "mine and not mine" being said simultaneously -- "me" and "not me" are one and the same.) This is not really "individualism" as we would generally think of it, but it is atomistic, I would suppose.
Of course, Plato was Greek rather than American. So his atomistic cogs were civic cogs, working or fighting or ruling for the sake of the polis. An American atomistic cog produces and consumes for sake of the economy.