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

  • From: Michael Chase <goya@xxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 11:51:46 -0700

Le 5 ao=FBt 04, =E0 21:13, Phil Enns a =E9crit :

> Chris Bruce wrote:
>
> "there is 'negative theology' (about which I would appreciate someone
> posting a few words).
>
> Below is something about negative theology, though unfortunately not a
> few words.
>
> In theology, 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=20
> negative
> statements can be made about God.  This is often confused with=20
> 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.C. Thanks to Phil for his learned exposition. I'm not sure, however,=20=

that the distinction negative vs. apophatic theology is really a valid=20=

one=A0: isn't "negative" simply a translation of the Greek =
*apophatikos*?=20
In any case, when you cite Gregory Nazianzen, what he says seems=20
clearly negative rather than apophatic, according to your definition,=20
since Gregory does not hesitate to tell us what God *is* : "God always=20=

was, and always is, and always will be. Or rather, God always=20
Is....etc".

        In the best article I know of on the subject ("Apophatisme et=20
theologie negative", in Exercices spirituels et philosophie antique,=20
2nd ed. Paris 1987, pp. 185-193), Pierre Hadot reminds us that the=20
techniques of negative theology go back to Middle Platonism. In=20
thinkers like Alcinoos, Celsus, Maximus of Tyre, and Apuleius (all 2nd=20=

cent. CE), we have a distinction between four ways of achieving=20
knowledge of God=A0: affirmative (attributing predicates to God),=20
analogic (comparing e.g. God to the sun), the method of transcendence=20
(where one claims that God exceeds everything we can think of), and=20
finally the negative method, where we say what God *is not*.

        According to Hadot, however, there was an evolution in Greek =
thought :=20
for the Middle Platonists God or the ultimate principle was an=20
intellect, and the way to achieve knowledge of him involved removing=20
(Greek *aphairein*) all predicates from Him: at the end of this process=20=

one was left with ultimate simplicity, and that's God. For Plotinus the=20=

ultimate principle is no longer the intellect, but the One, which is=20
beyond being; therefore, while we can say things *about* God, we cannot=20=

say God himself, that is, we cannot say what he *is*. In the later=20
Neoplatonism of Damascius (6th century), all we can say about God is=20
that we cannot talk about him. When we think we're talking about God,=20
all we're realy talking about is our own experience =93Our ignorance =
with=20
regard to him is complete, and we know him neither as knowable nor as=20
unknowable" (Damascius, De Princ., p. 13, 19 Ruelle).

        Hadot concludes by discussing Wittgenstein. For him, we can't =
get out=20
of language in order to express the fact that language expresses=20
something. Yet propositions *show* the logical form of reality, even if=20=

they can't talk about it; the fact that logical propositions are=20
tautologies - which depressed the hell out of Russell - *shows* the=20
logic of the world (Tractatus, prop. 6.12). Then of course there's the=20=

famous statement that what cannot be expressed but only *shown* is the=20=

mystic (prop. 6.522 : es gibt allerdings Unaussprechliches. Dies zeigt=20=

sich, es ist das Mystische). For Wittgenstein, Hadot concludes, the=20
meaning of the sayable is unsayable.
>
> <snip>

> It seems to me that the significance of the Christological=20
> controversies
> of the first few centuries of the Christian Church lies in their =
ruling
> out ways of talking about God that give positive content to God's
> nature.

M.C. I don't understand this statement. Surely what the Christological=20=

controversies were *about* was not declaring that it's impossible to=20
"give positive content to God's nature", but in taking *one* definition=20=

of God's nature - the *homoousian* Creed enshrined at Nicaea in 325 -=20
declaring all the other ones (particularly Arians and other=20
*homoiousians*)  false, and excommunicating everybody who thought=20
differently.


Best, Mike.
>
>
>
Michael Chase
(goya@xxxxxxxxxxx)
CNRS UPR 76
7, rue Guy Moquet
Villejuif 94801
France

------------------------------------------------------------------
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