[lit-ideas] Kataphasis/Apophasis
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 19:21:44 EDT
A Natural history of Apophasis: on '~', '¬', and '-'
Phil Enns writes:
>>three ways of 'knowing' God are distinguished. The first
>>is kataphatic, which affirms the ability to make positive statements
>>about God. The second is via negativa, which affirms that only negative
>>statements can be made about God. This is often confused with apophatic
>>theology. Apophatic theology asserts that not even negative statements
>>can be said of God. At first glance there may not seem to be much of a
>>difference between via negativa and apophatic theology, which would
>>explain why they are often used confused with each other, but there is.
>>One might say that via negativa belongs to the Aristotelian tradition
>>that comes to dominate Christian theology after Duns Scotus while
>>apophatic theology belongs to the Platonic tradition, which finds its
>>fullest expression in Aquinas.
M. Chase comments:
>Thanks to Phil for his learned exposition. I'm not sure, however,
>that the distinction negative vs. apophatic theology is really a valid
>one: isn't "negative" simply a translation of the Greek *apophatikos*?
I second M. Chase.
Whatever the identification or development of each doctrine in the different
traditions, there does not seem to be a _logical_ point in distinguishing a
_third_ way, as it were, between _affirmatio_ (kataphasis) and _negatio_
(apophasis).
Suppose we symbolise 'God' by 'g'.
We have different predicates which can or can not be attributed to 'g'.
Following Russell/Whitehead, we may symbolize them by "F", "G", ...
Suppose we say
Fg
"g is F"
That would certainly be an 'affirmatio' (kataphasis).
The corresponding negative must rely, of course, on the use of "~":
~Fg
Perhaps the relevance of a _third_ way may have to do with the idea that
there are two _senses_ (or, as I prefer, 'uses') of '~'. Some authors have even
suggested two different ways of formalizing:
¬
-- making a distinction between ~Fg and
¬Fg
-- These theorists would suggest that there's a neutral use, to be
symbolised by '-', that may come out as "~" and "¬" on occasion.
These may have a bearing with the distinction between 'negative' and
'apophatic'. If 'negative' is understood as presupposition-carrying, then to
say ~Fg
is like saying "The king of France is not bald" -- which _is_ saying
something about something (Ditto for God: "God is omniscient", say).
The 'negative' way, on the other hand, would maintain that negation need not
carry presupposition (and that "¬", rather than "~") should be used: "God is
not omniscient" would not _negate_ a predicate of the subject -- God -- since
it is not commital as to the existence of a referent for "God" -- "The king
of France is not bald; indeed, there is no King of France".
Cheers,
JL
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Kataphasis/Apophasis
