I don't understand why you say this. — John

It was because of remarks like this:

for me the fatal shortcoming of your "style of popular perennialism" is that it glosses over the intrinsic and irreconcilable differences between religions, and tendentiously interprets sacred scriptures in ways that are alien to their meaning and which seek, ironically, to undermine the very idea of their being one true authority, or any "genuine higher truth". — John

I took that is pretty condemnatory of my entire approach to the Forum, but please feel free to set me straight.

for me the fatal shortcoming of your "style of popular perennialism" is that it glosses over the intrinsic and irreconcilable differences between religions, and tendentiously interprets sacred scriptures in ways that are alien to their meaning and which seek, ironically, to undermine the very idea of their being one true authority, or any "genuine higher truth". — John

John said this? Then why the hell is he disagreeing with me?! Lol.

Btw, it looks like Pannikar was educated at a Jesuit college, so things are not looking well for him. I had a hunch!

Yes, because, at minimum, it is exactly that. That's not all it is, though, clearly. — Thorongil

I would say it is not a propositional claim at all, because such claims are proper only in the empirical sphere. Reading it propositionally; what would you say that it is actually claiming?

Mhmm, but one interpretation must be right and the others wrong, unless I'm talking to an epistemic relativist, which I don't think I am.

So, how would you describe Pannikar's book? Is he more of a universalist or does he acknowledge that religions have mutually exclusive truth claims? He would make for a very odd Catholic priest if he suggested that it didn't much matter whether one was Catholic, Buddhist, or Hindu. Maybe he's a Jesuit, though. — Thorongil

I don't believe it is an "epistemic" matter at all.

I would say that Pannikar examines every way that he can think of of thinking about the divine, and that he avows that ultimately, none of them can possibly be adequate.This is speaking from the point of view of pure rationality, though. If the ways of thinking about the divine are understood as being metaphorical, or even more profoundly as examples of mythoi, moments or movements that shape the spirituality of entire cultures; then there can be no question of comparing them in terms of right and wrong; of 'either/or".

I would say it is not a propositional claim at all, because such claims are proper only in the empirical sphere. Reading it propositionally; what would you say that it is actually claiming? — John

That there is no permanent, unchanging self.

I don't believe it is an "epistemic" matter at all. — John

We're speaking of the truth of one interpretation over and against others, are we not? How is it not epistemic?

I would say that Pannikar examines every way that he can think of of thinking about the divine, and that he avows that ultimately, none of them can possibly be adequate.This is speaking from the point of view of pure rationality, though. If the ways of thinking about the divine are understood as being metaphorical, or even more profoundly as examples of mythoi, moments or movements that shape the spirituality of entire cultures; then there can be no question of comparing them in terms of right and wrong; of 'either/or". — John

And yet he's a Catholic priest. Does he explain why he chose and continued to be one?

Are you confident that you have understood what I meant to say there? What exactly do you think I am saying there that leads to your conclusion? If you can pinpoint that, then we might be able to discover where you have misinterpreted what I said according, perhaps, to your own preconceptions. I can assure you that I see no contradiction or inconsistency in what I was thinking when I wrote that, and when I recommended Pannikar.

That there is no permanent, unchanging self. — Thorongil

What is "an unchanging permanent self"? Surely you need to know what something is, before you can deny it?

We're speaking of the truth of one interpretation over and against others, are we not? How is it not epistemic? — Thorongil

Matters of interpretation are properly hermeneutic, not epistemic.

And yet he's a Catholic priest. Does he explain why he chose and continued to be one? — Thorongil

Not that I remember. He doesn't seem keen to get into making comparative value judgements concerning the different traditions. But I speculate that he would have chosen Christianity because it was his 'native' tradition; the one within which he experienced his spiritual epiphany and was converted. Then he went back to study Buddhism and Advaitism because he is half-Indian, and he saw those as part of his cultural 'roots'. I speculate that he remained a Christian because he did see it as the highest, and philosophically richest, expression of the truth. I say this because Christianity includes notions of radical freedom, personality and a personal relationship with the Divine, that the other traditions (at least the non-Abrahamic) do not.

Are you confident that you have understood what I meant to say there? — John

Seemed unequivocal at the time - that my 'style of popular perennialism' has a 'fatal shortcoming'. Didn't seem a lot of room for interpretation.

The reason I used the term 'popular perennialism' was to indicate that I wasn't taking my approach overly seriously - it is similar to the kind of approach found in writers like Huston Smith, Ninian Smart, Alan Watts, and so on (I would hope, anyway). But I think it's an important approach in our cultural context which is by nature pluralistic in that it has to draw on a number of perspectives. So what I am trying to do, is to indeed discern if there are the outlines of a truly perennial philosophy in such materials - rather than getting into sectarian apologetics.

@Thorongil - Pannikar was a Jesuit. They are in a class of their own.

What is "an unchanging permanent self"? Surely you need to know what something is, before you can deny it? — John

Now you're critiquing the concept, but I'm not a Buddhist, so you'd have to ask them. But speaking on behalf of them, I would say that a permanent, unchanging self is a concept that has no referent in reality. It would likely fall under the category of "wrong views." All that exists is an impermanent, changing self.

Matters of interpretation are properly hermeneutic, not epistemic. — John

Any attempt to distinguish the true from the false is an epistemic endeavor.

But I speculate that he would have chosen Christianity because it was his 'native' tradition; the one within which he experienced his spiritual epiphany and was converted. Then he went back to study Buddhism and Advaitism because he is half-Indian, and he saw those as part of his cultural 'roots'. I speculate that he remained a Christian because he did see it as the highest, and philosophically richest, expression of the truth. I say this because Christianity includes notions of radical freedom, personality and a personal relationship with the Divine, that the other traditions (at least the non-Abrahamic) do not. — John

Your first speculation was an original concern. I can only hope your second one is more accurate.

Pannikar was a Jesuit. They are in a class of their own. — Wayfarer

Which may also be the Devil's. ;)

Yes, well I do think the problem with "popular perennialism" is its attempt to synthesize "the outlines of a truly perennial philosophy" because I don't believe there can be any such thing. There is certainly a perennial religious or spiritual impulse, but all the different traditions represent their own unique expressions of that. It is in the cultural uniqueness of traditions that their spiritual richness lies. As Pannikar himself says in the book I recommended:

"There is no single ultimate answer, because there is no single ultimate question". My earlier comment was based on the belief that you recommend that there is a "one true authority", a "genuine higher truth", and idea which, as I said, I think popular perennialism although itself valorizing (ironically) undermines. My argument with popular perennialism is over its superficiality not over its (unintended) undermining of the notion of any spiritual authority.

No, I don't think so. There are a number of Jesuit intellectuals and philosophers for whom I have great respect. Pannkar is one. There was a Jesuit who got to Dharamsala in the 1600's and was allowed to proselytize the Tibetans - he learned the language and wrote the first Western critique of śūnyatā. Matteo Ricci likewise joined the Imperial Court in Beijing and astonished the Mandarins with his precocity. Tielhard du Chardin was another prominent Jesuit. They often skirted heresy for having such a broad outlook.

My earlier comment was based on the belief that you recommend that there is a "one true authority", a "genuine higher truth", and idea which, as I said, I think popular perennialism (ironically) undermines. — John

I think what you're reacting against in all of what is said, is simply the word 'higher'. And why? Because
it connotes religious authority, so it hits a button. I never claimed any authority, but I will observe that the ethical and philosophical principles of the spiritual traditions have much in common, as Pannikar and others observe. And so, yes, I do think there is 'higher truth', and so there is a vertical dimension, which has to all intents vanished from Western culture (hence, books like Flatland, and One Dimensional Man, and several others.) Science doesn't comprehend that 'vertical dimension' at all, it can only be plumbed in the first person, so to speak.

I don't so much "react against" the idea of "higher authority" as just plain disagree with it. I think you are inappropriately imputing an unjustified psychologistic explanation for my views here.

The notion of "higher authority" comes exclusively from human institutions in my view; hence all the strife over it. As to "higher truth", I genuinely believe the same applies; there is no single "higher truth". There are certain spiritual human truths I believe, but none of them are absolute (although some are universal); they are discovered by a phenomenology of human spirituality, which should take note of the differences as well as the commonalities. So, I don't believe we are exhaustively socially, culturally, historically determined; but I do believe that the social, cultural and historical differences are both important and profoundly spiritual.

To be honest I have been puzzled before by your reactions to my disagreeing with you, with you even suggesting that we could not be friends on account of it. To me, it seems more the case that if anyone's "buttons" are being pushed, they are yours rather than mine. Perhaps some of my responses to you have been a bit strident, and seemed to be personal, but I have never meant it that way. Remember it was you that first suggested I was "missing something" without explaining what that "something" is. That does seem personal, and to be honest, somewhat patronizing. Perhaps I did come back a little strong on account of that, but any anger or sense of injustice I might have felt at the time is long forgotten now. :)

The notion of "higher authority" comes exclusively from human institutions in my view; hence all the strife over it. — John

I never said there was a single absolute - which is why I take a pluralistic approach. But I believe there must be a genuine vertical dimension, something which is qualitatively superior. Sure, the inability to agree on what that might be is a cause of strife, but that doesn't mean it isn't real. But, with Huston Smith, I believe there are "levels of being", and that the higher level is both more real is also the more valuable; these levels appear in both the "external" and the "internal" worlds, "higher" levels of reality without corresponding to "deeper" levels of reality within. On the lowest level is the material~physical world, which depends for its existence on the higher levels. On the very highest/deepest level is the Infinite or Absolute, whether that be understood as the God of the Christian bible, or the dharmakaya of the Buddhists. And the reality of that is no more a matter of human opinion than gravity or thermodynamics; but it is precisely the reality which modern materialist culture has now forgotten (as outlined in the book from which the above snippet is taken, Huston Smith's 'Forgotten Truth'.)

Remember it was you that first suggested I was "missing something" without explaining what that "something" is. — John

Apologies for that.

Perhaps some of my responses to you have been a bit strident, and seemed to be personal, but I have never meant it that way. — John

Apologies accepted. ;-)

Apologies accepted. ;-) — Wayfarer

Likewise :)

I never said there was a single absolute - which is why I take a pluralistic approach. But I believe there must be a genuine vertical dimension, something which is qualitatively superior. Sure, the inability to agree on what that might be is a cause of strife, but that doesn't mean it isn't real. But, with Huston Smith, I believe there are "levels of being", and that the higher level is both more real is also the more valuable; these levels appear in both the "external" and the "internal" worlds, "higher" levels of reality without corresponding to "deeper" levels of reality within. On the lowest level is the material~physical world, which depends for its existence on the higher levels. On the very highest/deepest level is the Infinite or Absolute, whether that be understood as the God of the Christian bible, or the dharmakaya of the Buddhists. And the reality of that is no more a matter of human opinion than gravity or thermodynamics; but it is precisely the reality which modern materialist culture has now forgotten (as outlined in the book from which the above snippet is taken, Huston Smith's 'Forgotten Truth'.) — Wayfarer

I agree with what you say here; but I would add that the "higher level" is not something which can be determinately formulated. Wherever this is attempted fundamentalism begins. So, I think care must be taken not to reify "levels of being" into social and political hierarchies of any kind. It is in that regard that I have no respect for authority. On the other hand I can see the need for authorities of various kinds to keep the moronic hordes in check. On a different tack, I am put off by the master/disciple hierarchy that seems to be so fundamental in Eastern spirituality. I have a few friends and I have had many other acquaintances, who were disciples of Osho; and they all swear he was a genuine master. The problem with that kind of relationship is; how do you tell?

The thing I like about Panikkar's emphasis on a trinitarian approach is that it allows for the most inclusive pluralism, without dissolving the important differences. That is the beauty of the Christian Trinity, and I'm not convinced that other traditions allow for that, or for the very important personal relationship with God; at least not to the same degree. Although I'm not necessarily saying the personal relationship is important for everyone; I'm undecided about that.

Yes I forgot, sorry. But why couldnt he turn back afterwards? I mean, 20 years old! If you wonder where I got that example from, it was an expantion of what Schopenhauer said was the consequences of Augustine's dogma : Namely, that for example a 20-year old who sins as I mentioned after having met God, has no chance at redemption but is damned and just has to wait his whole life on eternal hell. If that is true, then Christ really didnt come to save the world as he said it seems to me, but rather to destroy it, as he said he didnt. Have you read Bunyan's Man in the Iron cage? And are you Christian? And last of all, what is your opinion, is this example of the 20-year old a damned man?

Though it is obvious that Dostoevsky experienced the problems and struggles with God that Ivan experienced... — Beebert

Of course - Dostoevsky was an intellectual and as is usual for the East, there is a very strong tendency to "Westernise" and "Americanise" which usually means taking what is worse from the West rather than what is better (no wonder Communism came to the East - from the West!). The great pity has been the Eastern leaders have really been Western to the core - Lenin, Trotsky, Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamenev -
really Western intellectuals, who had lived in the West and had absorbed the Marxist communism propagated there. It's kind of stupid for the West today to claim they opposed communism, when in truth they created it and unleashed it on the Eastern world many times via financial backing and sponsoring with arms of revolutionary movements in the East. That's like throwing stones and breaking someone's windows at night and coming in the morning to offer your services to repair them in exchange for money :s

That is true back then as it is true today. That's why for example both Tolstoy and Dostoevsky struggle with atheism - an atheism which is fundamentally foreign to their motherland (now watch Wayfarer be annoyed :P ). It's an intellectual movement that is coming from the West. So someone like Dostoevsky struggles to resolve the contradiction between Ivan and Alyosha as they appear in his own soul.

Why BTW do you like someone like Aquinas? — Beebert

Aquinas is one of the best as far as philosophy goes, but as I've stated many times, I actually don't think philosophy has that much to help us. Philosophy doesn't go far enough, and is ultimately a dead end - and it's philosophical to recognise it as such. So my endorsement of Aquinas is a bit ironic - I don't have anyone else to endorse, but even he isn't good enough.

Russian distaste for Western Europe is a lot more complicated than just religion. — Heister Eggcart

Yes, and it usually has to do with the West who keeps wanting to interfere with the affairs of the East. And this has a long history for many Eastern countries - Russia is actually one of the least affected. Some other countries like say Lithuania or Ukraine have been a ping pong ball between Russia and the West for all their history.

But religion is also an important consideration. Don't forget that the East has for a long time accused the West of being atheistic, and there have been many authors here who keep on predicting the collapse of the West precisely for those reasons. Among the most recent, this one. (not that I agree with him, but it's an interesting read - definitely different than what you find on the Western market).

So, it is independent of reason, thus making you a fideist in this sense. — Thorongil

Yes sir, I plead guilty to that.

What have we been doing this whole time? Why are you talking to Beebert as well, in that case? — Thorongil

Ah, well Beebert has some misunderstandings with regards to Scripture, and how Scripture is to be understood (for example the role Apostolic Tradition plays in understanding Scripture). I explained to him passages he found problematic, and directed him to research with regards to the passages from the Old Testament (for it would be silly for me to go over matters that have already been discussed, especially since there's a lot of things he can bring up - I've just shown him that it's possible to account for all those). I think that's very productive.

I'm baffled as to how you think you can "invite" people to become Christians if their becoming so doesn't depend on rational argument, but rather on will, personal experience, and revelation — Thorongil

Of course! Reason is quite impotent, it's only usefulness really is in inducing a profound skepticism of its own powers, a skepticism which shows the soul its need for God.

Someone will not believe unless they love God and want God - so that's the role of the will. Someone will also not believe unless they have access to revelation. God is hidden, so He must reveal Himself. That's Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. And finally, one will not believe unless they experience God - that's why it says "Taste and see that the LORD is good" - it doesn't say reason and see that the LORD is good.

So it's quite simple. Reason is used as a weapon to prepare one for faith, but it doesn't generate faith at all. All it generates is skepticism (more precisely skepticism of atheism, scientism, etc.). Perhaps my favorite philosopher should be Sextus Empiricus :P

If you invite people without argument, then you're on equal footing with the Buddhist apologist, who, much like your metaphor of the lamp posts, has his own simile of the raft to describe the goal of Buddhism. You've given the prospective believer no means to determine why one path is any better than another. — Thorongil

So does he want to determine if a path is better than another without walking it? What did Jesus do, did He say "Let me convince you that I am the Truth and the Way and the Life"? Or did He invite people to see for themselves that He is the Way?

Your foundational assumptions are problematic. You presuppose that it is a priori possible to determine which is the best path without taking it, and that's false - it's also something that can be borne out of a fear of taking the wrong path (although you have to balance that with the fear of not taking any path, which is definitely the wrong path to take ;) ).

The thing I often see in all religions, especially christianity, as it is the one I encounter the most, is that behind this faith, behind this wonderful belief that their life will continue forever, that God loves them and that life has a meaning and is created just for them, is an intense fear of death. — Beebert

Yes, and behind the faith of the atheist in the non-existence of God is a deep seated and intense fear of responsibility for one's actions on Earth. -> See how reason is to be used? If the atheist critiques the believer for fearing death, the believer should critique the atheist for fearing responsibility and accountability for his actions. But this is nothing but rhetoric for even if true, such statements do not say anything about the truth of the underlying beliefs at all. But rhetoric is useful to move the will.

Does he advocate a kind of universalism or does he acknowledge that said traditions, similarities between them not withstanding, actually make mutually exclusive truth claims? — Thorongil

That is an important point. It's not about mutually exclusive truth claims, but rather that only one of them has access to the Truth (which is non-discursive).

I agree that philosophy doesnt teach us much in the end , except our own limits of understanding. Which is why the Only philosophies of real value are those who can teach you something about how to live and how to think. To me, the interest in Aquinas and the high esteem many hold for him is hard to understand. He is boring, he thought in reality nothing new, he was more into justice and vengeance than love and mercy etc. I simply cant see what he can teach a Christian. He is one of those who made christianity Into something it isnt it seems to me: A system, and a thought religion. The philosophers worth reading as I see it are Plato(because he far surpasses Aquinas in morals and virtues, and Most of all, he teaches you how to think, plus the prose in itself is of the highest quality), Augustine (But I dont like his theology. Confessions is enough), Schopenhauer (even though too pessimistic, he can teach you something), Kierkegaard (for obvious reasons it seems to me), Nietzsche (because he was the greatest poet and writer of all philosophers, as well as the funniest. He also was good at exposing religious nihilism and hypocrisy. And he pointed towards the truth about the meaninglessness and falseness of most philosophies. His weakness is that he didnt seem to understand or be interested in the greatness of true religion, as expressed by people like Francis of Assisi etc.), and Wittgenstein (Because he proved the meaninglessness of most philosophy). Other than these, I like the mystics. Eckehart, John of the Cross, Simone Weil etc.

He is boring, he thought in reality nothing new, he was more into justice and vengeance than love and mercy etc. — Beebert

That's good, justice is also needed.

He is one of those who made christianity Into something it isnt it seems to me: A system, and a thought religion. — Beebert

Aquinas did actually reject his philosophy at the end of his life and said it is all "like straw" compared to what God had revealed him. As I said, philosophy does have its place. Aquinas is good as a philosopher, but nothing more. If you had to choose a philosophy, it would be his.

The philosophers worth reading as I see it are Plato(because he far surpasses Aquinas in morals and virtues, and Most of all, he teaches you how to think, plus the prose in itself is the highest quality), Augustine (But I dont like God theology. Confessions is enough), Schopenhauer (even though too pessimistic, he can teach you something), Kierkegaard (for obvious reasons it seems to me), Nietzsche (because he was the greatest poet and writer of all philosophers, as well as the funniest. He also was good at exposing religious nihilism and hypocrisy. And he pointed towards the truth about the meaninglessness and falseness of most philosophies. His weakness is that he didnt seem to understand or be interested in the greatness of true religion, as expressed by people like Francis of Assisi etc.), and Wittgenstein (Because he proved the meaninglessness of most philosophy). — Beebert

I would say Aristotle, Plato, Kierkegaard, Aquinas, Augustine, Wittgenstein, Schopenhauer, Pascal, Hamann, Sextus, Spinoza if i had to make a list of philosophers that are really worth reading. Perhaps also include the Stoics (Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, etc.). I would exclude N. despite the fact that he did, some of the time, achieve profundity. He was also mistaken about a great deal of things.

Yes. Hamann is interesting from the little things I have read about him. Spinoza I have read Tractatus theologico-politicus. It was excellent. But his ethics was very hard for me to read without becoming bored by the style. So sure, Spinoza's ideas are profound, as well as his person. Aristotle I forgot. He is important. Aquinas might have his place, but I dont like him. He destroyed mysteries. He was one of those who destroyed the theology of the West IMO. Because western theology is more often than not despicable IMO. Pascal; sure. For the same reasons as Nietzsche (except their world views are very different. I believe Nietzsche went deeper. Therefore I prefer him).

Because western theology is more often than not despicable IMO — Beebert

Sometimes - some forms of Scholasticism certainly can be.

He destroyed mysteries. — Beebert

I wouldn't say he personally did this, but he did help in that movement and direction.

I agree with what you say here; but I would add that the "higher level" is not something which can be determinately formulated. Wherever this is attempted fundamentalism begins. — John

I think that's a bit fundamentalist itself. Sure, we can't proscribe the absolute but again, it doesn't mean there is none. I know you have recommended some great books on 'the sacred in nature', but we also need to relate the sacred to everyday life, which is one of the functions of religion and spirituality.

I discovered Rajneesh before the whole Osho thing, and wasn't taken in by him. Clever fellow, but not, in the vernacular, fair dinkum.

I agree with what you say here; but I would add that the "higher level" is not something which can be determinately formulated. Wherever this is attempted fundamentalism begins. So, I think care must be taken not to reify "levels of being" into social and political hierarchies of any kind. — John

This is demonstrably false, since apophatic experiences of God require dogma to be interpreted, corrected and guided. Dogma =/ fundamentalism.

I see that you're trying to get Russian history to fit with your current worldview. zzzzzzzzz

I see that you're trying to get Russian history to fit with your current worldview. zzzzzzzzz — Heister Eggcart

What part of Russian history isn't as I said? :s

Aquinas did help scholasticism to become a big part of the west yes. He also upheld the almost augustinian view of predestination and grace and election(Plus, he said one of the most disgusting things about the afterlife that I have heard), and he therefore not only was a front figure for scholasticism, but also for the thought of Calvin. BTW, I really think he was an overrated philosopher and thinker. Immanuel Kant proved him wrong also. Yes, Aquinas is one of the philosophers who has a hand in the fact that the west is so atheistic and rationalistic today. I am certain of it. And holding him as "The philosopher of the Church" as the catholics do, don't do them any favours. A quote from Aquinas, this apparently great philosopher, theologian and saint, will do: "In the kingdom of heaven, the blessed will see the punishment of the damned, so that they will derive all the more pleasure from their heavenly bliss.” Summa theologicae, 3, Q94, article 1

Or here is another translation of the same quote: "Wherefore in order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned."

Would an orthodox christian dare to say something like that? How about I quote Starets Silouan, who IMO was a real saint. The following is told by Archimandrite Sophrony on page 48 of his book, St. Silouan the Athonite:

I remember a conversation between [Silouan] and a certain hermit who declared with evident satisfaction,
‘God will punish all atheists. They will burn in everlasting fire.’
Obviously upset, Silouan said,
‘Tell me, supposing you went to paradise, and there you looked down and saw someone burning in hell-fire – would you feel happy?’
‘It can’t be helped. It would be their own fault,’ said the hermit.
Silouan answered him in a sorrowful countenance:
‘Love could not bear that,’ he said. ‘We must pray for all.’

Here is another quote by Starets Silouan:

“If the Lord saved you along with the entire multitude of your brethren, and one of the enemies of Christ and the Church remained in the outer darkness, would you not, along with all the others, set yourself to imploring the Lord to save this one unrepentant brother? If you would not beseech Him day and night, then your heart is of iron—but there is no need for iron in paradise.”

It seems to me like Aquinas and Silouan didn't really worship the same God. I prefer the God of Silouan.

Aquinas did help scholasticism to become a big part of the west yes. — Beebert

The movement was well under way, with or without him. He joined in it, but he by no means started it.

He also upheld the almost augustinian view of predestination and grace and election(Plus, he said one of the most disgusting things about the afterlife that I have heard), and he therefore not only was a front figure for scholasticism, but also for the thought of Calvin. — Beebert

Augustine & Aquinas did not hold the views of Calvin at all. Calvin largely misinterpreted them.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm

BTW, I really think he was an overrated philosopher and thinker. Immanuel Kant proved him wrong also. — Beebert

I think quite the opposite - Kant was wrong on most things and Aquinas was right on them.

A quote from Aquinas, this apparently great philosopher, theologian and saint, will do: "In the kingdom of heaven, the blessed will see the punishment of the damned, so that they will derive all the more pleasure from their heavenly bliss.” Summa theologicae, 35, Q94, article 1 — Beebert

Seemingly, but I get a feeling you know Aquinas from Nietzsche rather than from reading him. He certainly explains what he means by that soon after:

I answer that, A thing may be a matter of rejoicing in two ways. First directly, when one rejoices in a thing as such: and thus the saints will not rejoice in the punishment of the wicked. Secondly, indirectly, by reason namely of something annexed to it: and in this way the saints will rejoice in the punishment of the wicked, by considering therein the order of Divine justice and their own deliverance, which will fill them with joy. And thus the Divine justice and their own deliverance will be the direct cause of the joy of the blessed: while the punishment of the damned will cause it indirectly.

When I see a criminal punished, I'm happy because justice is done, not because harm is done to a man. Love doesn't mean that we as a society will not punish the criminal, for if we do not punish him, that would entail allowing others to suffer because of him, and thus not loving them.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5094.htm

Would an orthodox christian dare to say something like that? — Beebert

I think he would.

I remember a conversation between [Silouan] and a certain hermit who declared with evident satisfaction,
‘God will punish all atheists. They will burn in everlasting fire.’
Obviously upset, Silouan said,
‘Tell me, supposing you went to paradise, and there you looked down and saw someone burning in hell-fire – would you feel happy?’
‘It can’t be helped. It would be their own fault,’ said the hermit.
Silouan answered him in a sorrowful countenance:
‘Love could not bear that,’ he said. ‘We must pray for all.’ — Beebert

Sure, but Aquinas would not say the opposite. We naturally desire that all will repent and be saved by God - but unfortunately not all will. So we must pray for all - but not all will achieve salvation.

“If the Lord saved you along with the entire multitude of your brethren, and one of the enemies of Christ and the Church remained in the outer darkness, would you not, along with all the others, set yourself to imploring the Lord to save this one unrepentant brother? If you would not beseech Him day and night, then your heart is of iron—but there is no need for iron in paradise.” — Beebert

Yes, yes you would beseech, but that doesn't mean it's practically possible to save him if he does not want to be saved.

It seems to me like Aquinas and Silouan didn't really worship the same God. I prefer the God of Silouan. — Beebert

I think they worship the same God, but Silouan has a closer relationship with God and a deeper more mystical understanding, while Aquinas - at least in-so-far as his theology shows - is too trapped in the logical aspects of God. "Light" is relative to the plane of understanding - on the plane of understanding that Aquinas is on, God's logic is Light - but from a higher plane it is Darkness.

I respecfully disagree regarding Calvin misinterpreting Augustine. There is a very literal statement in City of God where Augustine says that God predestines some to salvation and others to damnation: double predestination. Calvin got him right for sure on that part. That Calvin was a monster otherwise is something else. He sure was. Interesting that you would, as an orthodox, agree with Aquinas over Kant. I would say Kant is more in line with orthodoxy from what I know of it. Kant is the greater thinker between the two at least. But it doesn't matter. That quote you gave me from Aquinas doesn't make thinks better. He is a heavenly utilitarian. He is not even close to Silouan in neither understanding nor holiness. He doesn't love his enemies, it is obvious from that quote. He speaks like a pathetic lawyer. Speaking about the joy the blessed will get from watching the damned because it makes them realize the great bless in their own deliverence... Is that christ-like? Allow me to laugh. If so, then christianity is behind buddhism by far. Luckily, christianity has real saints, like John of the Cross, Simone Weil, Silouan, Francis of Assisi, Seraphim of Sarov... I am sorry if I sound rude, really, but Aquinas... No. That doesn't impress me. I mean "by considering therein the order of Divine justice and their own deliverance, which will fill them with joy"... Where did he get that from? He is just a speculating clown. " And thus the Divine justice and their own deliverance will be the direct cause of the joy of the blessed: while the punishment of the damned will cause it indirectly."... Hmm... No. Nietzsche was correct here. And you say not all will be saved: How do you know for sure? It seems to me that if you said that to Silouan he would say that we shall pray and pray until all are saved, or rather: There is no paradise until God says "Abel, where is thy brother Cain?".

BTW, can you tell me this: Does God foreknow my destiny or not? Did he foreknow it eternally before I was born or not?

Is justice being done a cause of joy - yes or no?

It depends on how you view justice. "Mercy triumphs justice". So my answer is not a simple yes or no. Not at all. Justice can also be cold-hearted and mean. The pharisees were just in their sentences, because they followed the law, but they were heartless and cruel.