Denys - essay

Question 1

intro

Answer 1

• Problem for Xians that they need to try and convey transcendence through a limited human language
• For denys, there is no solution but there are strategies
• Need both apophasis and cataphasis
• Process that transforms the soul – need to recognise God as beyond both apophasis and cataphasis

Question 2

cataphasis

Answer 2

• Poem in MT - God descends via cataphasis
• Trinity in DN as supra-personal
  o But need to go beyond this and recognise that God transcends the boundary of language - ‘god is everything and yet no thing’
• length of DN vs. MT. DN is exhausting language. Turner - cataphasis = ‘verbal riot’
• God’s immanence in creation – he is the universal cause. the further up the hierarchy we go, the more we understand god’s essence (aka: God is at top of hierarchy (idea of emanation) but no ontological distinction (discuss in relation to creatio ex nihilo. idea of emanation seems in tension with this.)
• risk emanation poses to God’s transcendence
  o but diverges from neo-platonism by presenting God as the source of being itself (louth). hierarchies only mediate divine revelation, not being like in neo-p. tries to combine both ex nihilo and emanation, link to context
• divergence with aquinas - Moves further towards ex nihilo. Cannot describe Aquinas’ theology as emanationist but he does emphasise participation

Question 3

apophasis

Answer 3

• Need apophasis to reconcile cataphasis with God’s transcendence – recognise that he goes beyond it
• Scripture in DN - God is both knowable and unknowable. see cataphasis and must recognise that God goes beyond it
• Marble in MT: remove impediments
• starts with aspect of creation which is the least descriptive of God e.g. rock
  o the word rock does not encapsulate God, so we can get rid of it
  o even the most expansive term e.g. good, falls short of infinite God
  o goal of process = not knowledge but impossibility of knowledge through language. It does not equate with God’s being
• apophasis = not absence but transcendence e.g. infinite - as seen with proclus, adds the prefix ‘hyper-‘ to suggest God’s transcendence of qualities (Evans)
• negations doubles (rogues), God transcends both apophasis and cataphasis - affirm and then negate and then negate the contradiction between the positive and negative. religious language is rightly paradoxical

Question 4

union with God

Answer 4

• Linguistic and spiritual abstraction to get to God
• Descent through cataphatic maximalism before ascending through apophasis
• Language is not merely descriptive, it is a way of knowing God
• Start with cataphasis maximalism and exhaust the limits of language before then turning to apophasis
• and yet Apophasis allows language to wear itself out, we move back from specific to general
• Reach a dumbness of speech and thought
• Neither apophasis nor cataphasis are enough
• The goal is to move from the third person (knowledge) to the second person (union) in one’s engagement with God.
  o The goal is to keep moving and not rest content with strategy
  o Through God’s grace it is possible to get closer to understanding
  (Gregory of Nysa, epecstasis, requires self-renunciation. both compare to Moses ascent to holy mount - constant struggle that we cannot give up on)
• Beginning of MT suggests language is key to D’s desire for union with God (doxological style). not merely descriptive
• contemplation = creative process. look at use of metaphor.

Question 5

conc

Answer 5

• Union with God demands a linguistic battle

- Multi-faceted purpose: worship and spiritual

Question 6

ao2 for cataphasis

Answer 6

• charge of polytheism if we apply all ontological characteristics to God? e.g.. turner and patriarchal language
  + this just reinforces inadequacy of language
  + denys overcomes charges of polytheism through emphasising emanation (how does this relate to creatio ex nihilo) - compare to Aquinas who places more emphasis on participation but creatio ex nihilism

Question 7

ao2 for apophasis

Answer 7

+ shows human incapacity to describe God using language
+ turner, difference between negative propositions and negating the propositional. Whilst an Aristotelian approach to negation would hold that if we are to take names for God literally, their contradictories must also be true, this is only the case if all ‘perceptual’ names of God are deemed literal utterances. To say that God is infinite, for instance, is not to simply state the opposite of the affirmation that God is finite, but rather requires a recognition that ‘God transcends the difference between similarity and difference’
seen in idea of trinity - we can’t grasp idea of God as three in one. shows human limitation

Question 8

ao2 for union

Answer 8

• nihilism??? flew
  + no as hypernegation shows that language is rightly paradoxical - reduced to ineffability but this simply reinforces God’s transcendence. suggests theory of language and transcendence
  + language allows us to reach spiritual union with God (see prayer). language is not merely descriptive