[lit-ideas] Re: Kataphatic, Negative and Apophatic Theology

  • From: "Phil Enns" <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 09:00:37 -0400

Julie Krueger wrote:

"When someone says 'negative theology' I think of two things.  One is
'ayin' in Judaic Kabbalism.  Kabbalists refer to God as 'Lo' which
means 'not'.  God is not anything that can be described or which ex -
ists.  Stands outside.  God is that which cannot be  predicated.  That
about which nothing can wholly or accurately be  said.  God is that
about which nothing True can be said.  So in some  way he is Not.  The
other is a piece from the Tripartite Tractate from the  Nag Hammadi
codices -- 'If he is incomprehensible, then it follows that he is
unknowable, that he is the one who is inconceivable by any thought,
invisible in  any thing, ineffable by any word, untouchable by any
hand....' Which of your three catagories would either of these fit,
Phil?"

This would be negative theology.  The characteristic move is to identify
God as completely other to us, the world, existence, and therefore
completely beyond language, knowledge or understanding.  In apophatic
theology, God is beyond knowledge but not other, often being made
present in mystical experience, for example see my reference to Gregory
of Nazianzus where God is experienced as like a lightning flash, or in a
more comprehensive manner, as we see in Aquinas.  To remain solely with
the via negativa is to eventually end up in the difficult spot of having
to explain how one can make statements about what 'stands outside' that
which makes statements possible.


Julie continues:

"And what is a parallel  philosophy?  I have always considered Derrida
to be doing the linguistic  and philosophical equivalent, parallel, of
negative theology in his work."

For some time Derrida has acknowledged being attracted to negative
theology and perhaps his philosophy parallels it, but he has also made
some clear statements regarding truth and justice that would suggest his
philosophy, and perhaps his theology, does not strictly belong to the
via negativa.  Derrida is often caricatured as being solely concerned
with the negative, and Derrida's style certainly encourages this, but I
don't think this portrait is accurate.

Sincerely,

Phil Enns
Toronto, ON

------------------------------------------------------------------
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:

  1. Home
  2. lit-ideas
  3. Archive
  4. 08-2004