 |
Nicholas of Cusa and Master Eckhart on Negative Theology
|
|
|
|
Санкт-Петербургский государственный университет
Философский факультет
Кафедра истории философии
Центр изучения средневековой культуры
Санкт-Петербургское общество изучения культурного наследия Николая Кузанского
Александринский семинар
Международная конференция
«Майстер Экхарт и св. Григорий Палама: актуальность духовного опыта»
Июня 2014 года
Санкт-Петербургский государственный университет
Философский факультет
Оргкомитет конференции:
Олег Эрнестович Душин, доктор философских наук, профессор кафедры истории философии Философского факультета Санкт-Петербургского государственного университета (председатель);
Михаил Юрьевич Реутин, кандидат филологических наук, доктор философских наук, ведущий научный сотрудник Института высших гуманитарных исследований при Российском государственном гуманитарном университете, Москва;
Др. Константинос Афанасопоулос, член Британской Академии высшего образования, научный сотрудник Факультета Философии Открытого университета, Великобритания;
Евгений Анатольевич Маковецкий, доктор философских наук, доцент кафедры музейного дела и охраны памятников Философского факультета Санкт-Петербургского государственного университета;
Виталий Николаевич Морозов, кандидат философских наук, научный сотрудник Трирского университета, Германия;
Наталья Владимировна Еремеева, аспирант кафедры истории философии Философского факультета Санкт-Петербургского государственного университета (ученый секретарь).
Секция 1. Духовный опыт Майстера Экхарта и св. Григория Паламы в горизонте европейского философствования, богословия и культуры
|
|
|
М.Ю. Реутин
Российский государственный гуманитарный университет
Антропология и учение об экстазе у Майстера Экхарта и Григория Паламы
Введение: лексико-стилистический аспект творчества Гр. Паламы и М. Экхарта
«Игры» с богословской терминологией и процессы субстантивации глаголов, прилагательных и причастий. Критика Гр. Паламы Гр. Акиндином. Субстантивация глагола обнаруживает на уровне стилистики отход от креационной модели и зарождение в ее недрах паламитского и экхартовского, по существу неоплатоновского, эманационизма. Общая характеристика учения об эманации у Гр. Паламы («ἐνέργεια»-действование) и М. Экхарта («perfectio spiritualis»-духовное совершенство).
Теоретические посылки
I. Понятие «духовных совершенств» в философии Экхарта и их характеристика: 1) духовные совершенства существуют до своих тварных субъектов-носителей; 2) существуют и после них, когда те исчезают, они остаются; 3) они не получают бытие от субъектов, но наоборот сообщают им свое бытие; и, наконец, 4) сами субъекты (не в качестве тварных людей, а в качестве людей мудрых, несотворенных, праведных, вечных) существуют «постольку / поскольку» (inquantum / intantum), в ту меру, в какую способны приобщаться духовным совершенствам: несотворенным, вечным и неделимым. Описание по тем же параметрам Энергий Гр. Паламы на примере «Триад» (ч. III).
II. Анализ п. 14–22 экхартовского «Толкования на Евангелие от Иоанна» на примере пары праведника и Праведности. Четыре основных позиции: Божество, Праведность не рожденная, рожденная праведность и праведник. Терминология порождения (generatio). Те же четыре позиции у Гр. Паламы, анализ гл. 37 трактата «О божественных энергиях и их причастии». Терминология порождения (γέννησις).
III. Различие концепций Экхарта и Паламы: 1) образ искорки у М. Экхарта, который не развился, но принципиально возможен в мистагогии Гр. Паламы, 2) отождествление Бога и человека у Экхарта (логические основания).
|
|
|
Критерии мистического опыта
I. Холизм: обожествление человека, согласно Экхарту и Гр. Паламе, во всем его психо-соматическом составе.
II. Персонализм: цельность, неповрежденность человеческого начал в акте богообщения. Терминология сотрудничества (ein mitwürken), «соработник» (mitewürker) у Экхарта и συνεργός, συνεργία у Ареопагита и Паламы.
III. Энергийность: соединение двух горизонтов бытия, осуществляющееся только по энергии, а не по ипостаси или сущности.
Персонализм, энергийность, холизм – эти важнейшие критерии исихастского опыта богообщения – в полной мере свойственны и экхартовской мистагогии. Они не являются уникальными признаками восточной (и прежде всего афонской) традиции, по которым та отличается от неоплатоновской мистики позднего Средневековья. Богословие Гр. Паламы и М. Экхарта – восточно - и западноевропейская ветви неоплатонизма XIV в.
Constantinos Athanasopoulos
Open University, United Kingdom
The Cloud of Unknowing in Eckhart and Palamas: Discussion of Areopagitic Ineffability and its significance for Western and Eastern Christian Mysticism
Both Eckhart and Palamas use ineffability of God as described by the Areopagetic "Cloud of Unknowing" (γνόφος αγνωσίας) in their mystical philosophy and mystical theology. This has specific epistemological, metaphysical-ontological and ethical implications. I wish to claim that their use of ineffability differs considerably from the use of this term in contemporary analytical discourse about the Unknown God (Hick, 2000; Kellenberger, 1979). Using some of the intuitions found in Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, Culture and Value and A Lecture in Ethics, but also Kenny 2004, I will embark on an investigation of the following questions: a) Are the accounts Meister Eckhart and St Gregory Palamas provide for ineffability and the Cloud of Unknowing the same? b) Is the account of Meister Eckhart compatible to the one offered by St Gregory Palamas in metaphysics-ontology, epistemology, ethics? c) Can we use our contemporary philosophical and theological discourse to describe the differences? d) Which account is preferable to help us understand the metaphysical-ontological, epistemological and ethical implications of the adoption of the Cloud of Unknowing as a mode of life and philosophical/theological enquiry?
Л.В. Цыпина
Санкт-Петербургский государственный университет
Мистика и герменевтика: проблема "онтологической нехватки языка”
А.П. Козырев
Московский государственный университет
Томизм и паламизм: к истории рецепции в ХХ веке
Iris Wikström
Åbo Akademi University, Finland
|
|
|
Nicholas of Cusa and Master Eckhart on Negative Theology
The concept of negative theology implies that human – due to the infinite distance between God and herself – is not capable of forming any judgment on him: God is supersubstantialis (i.e. transcending human existence) and cannot be described. This is the view of Cusanus, who mainly refers to Dionysius and the Cappadocians. The basic question is, first, how he connects negative theology with the crucial concept of docta ignorantia and, secondly, the one of the consequences drawn by him concerning the possibilities of an affirmative theology which seems to be surpassed by negative theology. This is basically a philosophical concern (of method), although the discourse (of Cusanus) is mainly on doctrine of Trinity, or a theological issue. It is also a concern common to Cusanus and Master Eckhart, as the latter was well acquainted with contemporary philosophy (Thomas Aquinas; Albertus the Great. cf. Flasch 2010; 1987).
I will start by discussing, whether the propositions of affirmative theology (e.g. ”God is almighty”) can be considered ”certain propositions” (Wittgenstein), i.e. propositions the truth of which are not questioned as they are, implicitly as well as explicitly, part of language and consequently belong to our way of thinking and acting. This seems to be the case as they are an accepted part of doctrine, which is basically a product of the official discourse, using the position in the life of the believers of a certain issue as the ultimate criterion of validity and never excluding the proposition once accepted. Ultimately, the practice of faith hence seems to form doctrine. However, doctrine is not verbally complete or final (Cusanus and Eckhart). In the philosophy of Cusanus, the statements of affirmative theology seem to be considered “basic propositions” (D.Z. Phillips), which are true by necessity, and belong to the whole of doctrine. The concept of docta ignorantia, which Cusanus has adopted from the thought of Eckhart (and St. Augustine), belongs to negative theology, which has been formed by approximate truths (coniecturae) and presupposes God as ultimate (and ineffable) ground, or possibility (posse; possest). Affirmative theology seems to be a way of doctrinal approachment, i.e. basically a theological method, not only a collection of certain dogmatic truths. On the other hand, Cusanus presupposes that negative and affirmative theology are interrelated in the sense that affirmative theology presents the explicit or implicit pre-suppositions of negative theology, the latter of which is more essential for comprehending faith. According to the Danish scholar J. Slök, the main concern of Cusanus consists of the dialectic of principium and principiata: Cusanus hence creates a negative, as well as an affirmative theology: The names of God – belonging to the latter – exist eternally, in complicatio. As they are used by human, they are given back to God, but as there is the risk of their being effected by principiata [or: ”coniectural”], negative theology is needed as a complement of affirmative theology.
In De docta ignorantia, Cusanus points out that devotion of God is based on affirmative propositions, although any religion in its devotion by necessity surpasses affirmative theology. Devotion is determined by faith, which is comprehended more correctly by means of docta ignorantia. To human, this implies that she believes that the one, whom she worships precisely as one, is all in his oneness. It likewise implies that what she worships as unavailable light is not light in a physical sense nor the opposite of darkness but absolute infinity and infinite light as darkness is infinite light. It finally implies that infinite light always shines in our ignorance, although it is incomprehensible to darkness. Negative theology is, hence, such indispensable to affirmative theology, that God cannot without it be worshipped as infinite God, but would be adored as creation. However, this would be idolatry, which would give the image what belongs to truth alone (De Docta ignorantia I, n. 83).
|
|
|
Cusanus, additionally, asserts that docta ignorantia has revealed to us “ineffability of God”, as he is infinitely beyond what can be expressed by language. As this is absolutely true, we speak of him more correctly, if we distance ourselves from and deny creation. God is, hence, neither Father, nor Son, nor Holy Spirit, but infinity. Cusanus refers to Hilarius of Poitiers, who speaks of Trinity as “eternal infinity, idea in image, proceeding giving”. In eternity we see pure infinity. But infinity, which is eternity, cannot be considered “generating”, because of its negativity, whereas eternity can be considered such as it is the affirmative notion of unity, i.e. pure presence. Eternity is hence origin with no origin, idea in image, principle from principle, and practicing giving (i.e. having its origin in both; cf. the Augustinian notions of forma, materia and connexio, also used by Cusanus). If one considers unity, infinity refers to the Father, but if you consider the aequality of unity, it is the Son. Finally, if you consider the connection, it is the Holy Spirit. As such, infinity is neither Father Son nor Holy Spirit. Although infinity, as well as eternity, is whoever of these three persons and any of the three persons is infinity and eternity, this is not a matter of “seeing”, or consideration. For from the point of view of infinity, God is neither one, nor several. From the point of view of negative theology, in God, there is nothing but infinity. Consequently, there can be no knowledge of him in this world, nor in the coming, as any creation which cannot grasp the eternal light, is darkness in comparison with it, hence, knowing solely itself. (Ibid., n. 88).
According to Master Eckhart, God could be called by any name, but only as far as one accepts that names express human concepts of matter, not matter itself. Cusanus seems to make further use of the relation between affirmative and negative theology. He refers to Hermes Trismegistos according to whom God – being the fullness of all (universitas) – has no proper name, but could be expressed by any name (or anything could be named by his name). Within his unity he includes fullness of all things. The most appropriate name of God is (cf. above): “God is unity”. Affirmative judgments are, hence, valid in the realm of creation and reason, but not beyond this realm (or: intellectually). On the other hand, they are not questioned in their own realm, which is the one of religious life and use of language. This implies basically that propositions of negative theology have a different validity (or use) compared to the ones of positive theology, which is really the view of Cusanus. However, cf. De filiatione Dei, n. 83: “Nor did Zeno transmit something about truth and Parmenides, Plato, or any others different things, but all who were looking on the one expressed it in various modes. For although their modes of speaking are contrary and seem incompatible, yet they attempted to unfold only that one, which is established unattainably above every contrariety. For theology is one: as affirmative, affirming all things of the one, as negative, denying all things of the same one, as dubitative, neither denying nor affirming, and as disjunctive, affirming one thing and denying another, and as unitize, joining opposites affirmatively or negatively”.
The outer frame of the discourse of Cusanus is basically the text of Apologia doctae ignorantiae (1449), in which he defends the thought of Master Eckhart and especially his concept of negative theology (and Christology) against the accusations expressed by the German scholar Johannes Wenck, Heidelberg (cf. De docta ignorantia I, n. 86-89). This is a text from the beginning of the Roman period of Cusanus, i.e. almost simultaneous with his work Idiota de sapientia (1450) in which he introduces the new concept of theologia sermocinalis (”... this is vocational theology, by which I am endeavoring to lead you unto God – in the easiest and truest way I can – through the meaning of the word. ”, n. 33). – In his thought, Cusanus presupposes the distinction of exemplar (= God) and image (= human), which is alien to Eckhart. As the main concern, which is ”comprehension of the art of the absolute mind”, seems to approach the mode of thought of Eckhart, it could be asked whether, or in which way it is connected to the discourse on negative and affirmative theology. It is however clearly tied to the concept of ineffability of God, which is crucial to Cusanus and likewise seems to be so to Master Eckhart. Though they have a great deal in common, the never ceasing endeavor of Cusanus to express the unity of God in all realms of life seems to make a difference concerning the way of understanding the possibilities of religious language.
|
|
|
В.Н. Морозов
Университет Трира, Германия
|
|
|
