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

  • From: "Phil Enns" <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 14:24:30 -0400

I had written:

"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."

to which Scribe1865@xxxxxxx replied:

"A philosopher or theologian may have to explain how such statements are
possible, but does an individual using via negativa as a spiritual
exercise?  The need to explain distinguishes between theologian and
mystic isn't it?  By striving for coherent explanation as a measure of
transcendental truth, doesn't one unnecessarily restrict the object of
one's examination?"

There is a difference between using the via negativa as spiritual
exercise and using it as the sole means of talking about God.  I was
referring to the latter and hope that it was clear that there is a place
for the via negativa.

The issue I was raising was not whether the mystic has to do
transcendental philosophy or theology but whether the mystic has to, at
some point, draw on kataphatic theology.  At its simplest, how does one
identify a mystical experience?


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