Talk:Palamism

revision to Palamism#Among Orthodox theologians

As noted in the above discussion section, I drafted a revised version of Palamism#Among Orthodox theologians at User:Phatius McBluff/Palamism section. LM appears to have expressed approval of this draft, and no one else has raised any issues, so I have taken the liberty of editing the section in accordance with the draft. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

POV issues with this article

Moving LoveMonkey's comment here from Talk:East-West Schism --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The entire article is POV. Palamism is a term of POV. The first thing and only thing I contributed to your POV pushing article was a modern Orthodox theologian on the radio saying that the term Palamism is for something that does not even exist. And the Orthodox whom use the term are addressing the Roman Catholic POV and misinformation that the Roman Catholic church disseminates under the guise of something they have created called Palamism. Gregory Palamas' teachings in the East are referred to as "Eastern Orthodox theology." As if this wasn't done before with such stupid things as Pelagianism. Its scholastic trash talk. Theres no a such thing, its made up magic, its pure straw man. And you would know this if you actually read Eastern Orthodox theology instead attacking and silencing and edit warring the lot of Eastern Orthodox Christians pointing this out. But its easy to get an administrator to protect you and have him and his buddies on here pick me apart because even if I am right they just don't like my attitude. Nevermind the cause. PATHETIC. Yeah Wikipedia census actually makes historical facts valid or invalid. YEAH. Thats real academic.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Really? "Palamism" is a very well-established term in scholarship, including to an extent in Greek. There is no POV, it is merely a term describing the doctrines of Palamas and his supporters. The fact that it was accepted across the Orthodox world means nothing, the Council of Chalcedon is also accepted and we still have Chalcedonianism as a term... Constantine ✍ 09:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Constantine. Good to see you posting for the Orthodox. I hope you represent us with love and understanding or even better that you are practicing yourself. Uh Constantine its a Neologism WP:NOTNEO. Please post for the sake of the article. The origin of the term and or when it was first used by the Eastern Orthodox. I have no where in Orthodox theology where an Orthodox theologian (whom the Greeks have not chastised; an example as such being Meyendorf) that uses the term, ;east as a tradition appears to be missing from the East on this and from his (Palamas') section in say the Philokalia. Here is Clark Carlton's comment (as this is not my individual opinion but rather what people are being told) I was referring to reposted [1].

Quote "The first thing we must understand about Palamism, is that there is absolutely no such thing. Palamism is the invention of Roman Catholic thinkers."

So are you Constantine saying that Carlton is mistaken? And is there another theological Orthodox source you can name that clarify why what Carlton's is saying should not be disseminated as it is through out the Orthodox churches and or over Orthodox Radio. Please address the substance of this, please tell me where I am going and also Mr Carlton. Thank you in advance. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not a theologian nor a very religious person, so, frankly, I have no stake in the issue. My involvement here has been limited to the role Palamism played in the Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347, so I don't know enough on the subject to judge Carlton's statement. What I do know is that there is a literature comprising hundreds of books that uses the term. Just as with the debates on the names of the Republic of Macedonia or the Byzantine Empire, we are not here to right great wrongs, but to represent, as far as possible, scholarly consensus, and that applies to terminology as well. I also note that even Carlton uses the term, in the very headline of his lecture: "Palamism Explained in Twelve Minutes or Less", which means that he acknowledges its existence as a well-understood and well-defined term of reference. In other words, feel free to include Carlton's statement in the article, but don't take this one statement to dismiss the entire article and its very name, because then you take one guy's view, couple it with your own preconceptions, and make a mix that smacks of WP:OR and WP:POV. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 15:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Uh thats what a neologism would be. Something new that is not in the older more historical sources close to the period of time that the event would encompass. I think it is pretty safe to give creditability to Carlton considering who he is. And also to say that the sources are indeed treating the term (from an Orthodox perspective) as a neologism, as Carlton is. Also forgive me Constantine but the term for the Byzantine conflict properly reflected would not Palamism it would be Hesychasm and the Hesychast wars. Again forgive me, I wish you no harm or disrespect but that is more proper to the sources from the time. Also its not OR to ask the date and or origin of the term and or subject of an entry here on wikipedia as a matter of wiki principle its encouraged which is why I noted the WP:NOTNEO. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Here let me post the Wiki policy so that my objections might be made clear.

Neologisms
See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch)#Neologisms and new compounds Policy shortcuts:

WP:NEO

WP:NOTNEO

Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. As Wiktionary's inclusion criteria differ from Wikipedia's, that project may cover neologisms that Wikipedia cannot accept. You may wish to contribute an entry for the neologism to Wiktionary instead.

Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.

Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles.

In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.
LoveMonkey (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The article looks well written, providing a lot of useful information, but I also agree it can present some problems. The following "Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity", also describes the term as "dismissive", "It has sometimes (but dismissively) been called Palamism in some studies". It should also be noted, that the article shares many topics with other articles, such as Hesychasm or Hesychast controversy, and the following books[2][3][4][5] consider the terms "Palamism" and "Hesychasm" as synonyms (although Gregory Palamas did not invent Hesychasm, but he defended it). This could mean we have two articles which are supposed to discuss the same subject, so a merge could also be considered in this case. However, I'm not opposed to keeping the article under a more descriptive title (perhaps something like the "The theology of Gregory Palamas").Cody7777777 (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Cody. I completely agree. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Cody's suggestion seems like a reasonable compromise.– Lionel ^(talk) 20:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Theology of Gregory Palamas would be OK, but "Palamism" is but a shorter synonym for this, just as "Marxism", "Stalinism", "Maoism", "Arianism" etc. All these terms have a pejorative connotation, but it doesn't mean they are not widely used. My main concern, which I address to those of you who know more about this topic, is this: is there any reason why Hesychasm and "Palamism" have to be two different articles? Because my impression is that "Palamism" is simply the (pejorative) appellation of Hesychasm. Are there enough differences to justify the two articles? Constantine ✍ 21:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Rationale for the various articles on Palamas and Hesychasm

Constantine asked: "is there any reason why Hesychasm and "Palamism" have to be two different articles? Because my impression is that "Palamism" is simply the (pejorative) appellation of Hesychasm. Are there enough differences to justify the two articles?"

I am the creator of a number of articles related to Palamas and Hesychasm, the two most relevant being this article Palamism and Hesychast controversy.

There were two major motivations driving my work on these articles:

(1) I felt that the discussion of the theological concepts related to the thought of Gregory Palamas was too fragmented, being described in a number of different articles, viz. Essence-Energies distinction, Theosis, Hesychasm and Tabor Light. There was no overarching article to explain to the reader how all these fit together. Even the article on Eastern Orthodox Christian theology has only a single paragraph on the "Essence-Energies distinction" and nothing on the other topics mentioned above. Does anybody else also think that the article on Eastern Orthodox Christian theology should be expanded to discuss these topics?

Section 3 of the Palamism article, titled "The doctrine", attempts to provide a broad overview of these key concepts in Orthodox theology. Unless someone wants to argue that all of these above-mentioned topics can fit in the Hesychasm article, I think there is adequate justification for keeping this as a separate article although I am open to discussing a possible change in title to something along the lines of Theology of Gregory Palamas with a redirect from Palamasim.

(2) Section 2 of the Palamism article, titled "Development of the doctrine", provides an overview of the historical development of the Palamite doctrine. I felt that there was inadequate coverage of the ecclesiastical, political and military context in which the teachings of Gregory Palamas struggled to become accepted as solid Orthodox doctrine. Whereas the article on Palamism focuses on the theological components of Palamite theology, the article Hesychast controversy attempts to present the historical context and chronological development of Palamas' theological writings. Originally, I had written the text of Hesychast controversy as part of the Palamism article but the amount of historical detail grew way too voluminous and was dominating the article so I created Hesychast controversy as a locus where I could delve into the historical detail without distracting readers who were more interested in the theological concepts.

I put a fair amount of work into these two articles and also gave some serious thought as to how they should be structured. Nonetheless, I am open to hearing what other editors might have to suggest about how the material in the articles should be presented.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your work on these topics, and I wouldn't want to see it lost. I have to say, that the Essence-Energies distinction, Theoria, Theosis and Tabor Light are very important topics in Hesychasm (which is considered a practice allowing the believer to become purified enough to to see the Uncreated Light (Energies), and reach Theosis, without becoming absorbed in God's Uncreated Essence, which cannot be known by humans), and these are also important topics for the "Eastern Orthodox Christian theology" article (which I think should offer more about them, even if it is a more general topic). However, I realize merging this article with Hesychasm (which discusses more about the practice itself, including it's history before Palamas) is not too easy, and might not have very good results, possibly leading to a long article (and I don't indend anyway to do this myself). But, especially since there are sources which consider "Hesychasm" and "Palamism" as synonyms, an article titled "Palamism" can potentially look like a WP:POVFORK of Hesychasm, so I think "Theology of Gregory Palamas" is a more explicit and better title for this article's purpose. Cody7777777 (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Cody. I always appreciate your calm, reasoned and dispassionate response which is why I often ask you for your input when I feel that there is a valid issue behind some of the more strident rhetoric that is expressed by other editors. Assuming that we moved this article to Theology of Gregory Palamas, where do you think Palamism should point to? Should it point to Theology of Gregory Palamas or to Hesychasm? In either case, I agree that we should make clear that the term "Palamism" is often used dismissively and we should state the Orthodox position that Palamas did not interoduce anything new but simply elaborated and provided a fuller exposition of theological teachings that had always been part of the orthodox faith. I think Montalban suggested Sherrard as a source for this point. Unfortunately, I don't have access to Sherrard's work. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to say, I'm not very sure where it should redirect. The books mentioned earlier suggest it can be used as a redirect for "Hesychasm". However, after renaming the article, "Palamism" will automatically become a redirect here, and regarding the current structure used, it is probably common sense to leave it point here (and anyway, I don't think it is problematic as a redirect). Cody7777777 (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I can see that a lot of work has been done on this article. It has some unique material. However, the quantity of that material is not, in my view, sufficient to justify its separation from the article Hesychast controversy. Large parts of section 2 could very easily be dropped into section 3 ("Chronology of the controversy") without any loss of flow. Parts of section 3 could be droped in elsewhere. I endorse the attempt to have an overall wrapper that has all the various threads. However, I feel that "Hesychast controversy" is a more suitable vehicle for this wrapper. Peace. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Hagioritic Tome and Capita 150

Since a number of people seem to have this page on their watchlist, I would like to take this opportunity to point out my surprise that there are no articles on the Hagioritic Tome, the Capita 150 or the Synodikon of the Sunday of Orthodoxy. (Personally, I'm a little bit proud of the fact that, as a non-Orthodox, I am aware of these things.) Since the Hagioritic Tome and the Capita 150 are two of the major writings of Gregory Palamas, it would seem to me that there should be articles on them. Unfortunately, my web research yielded insufficient information to create an article on these. My hope is that someone who knows more than I would create articles on them.

Similarly, I know very little about the Synodikon of the Sunday of Orthodoxy but, from what I've read, it would seem to be a very important part of the Orthodox faith. And yet, there is darn little to be found on the web about it (I suppose it would help if I knew Greek but alas my education is sorely deficient in that dimension). Anyway, does anybody else think that there should be an article on that topic?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be an explanation and a full translation of the "Synodikon" here. Cody7777777 (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Illustration of John Cassian actually St. Jerome

The graphic of John Cassian is actually St. Jerome, which is featured on the cover of Cassian's work "The Conferences" in the Ancient Christian Writers Series - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.208.103.130 (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

References