09 March 2008

de via negativa...

To whatever extent apophaticism is still sexy in post-modern theology, a rejoinder from two of the apophatic tradition's more important voices:

'"This alone is thoroughly understandable in him: infinity." And the very fact of knowing nothing about him is to know beyond the mind's power...'

Here Maximus, quoting Gregory Nazianzen, contends that apophaticism is a kind of kataphaticism, there is a certain theological hubris* in claiming to be without theological hubris, or to put it into language to which the Derrideans** might be more closely attuned, that persistently pointing out the violence of all claims about (God, truth, whatever) is itself a violent tendency.

I doubt that it's incidental that this claim comes in Gregory's Easter oration, and then again in Maximus' Centuries on Love, nor that it is in neither case a lament about the impossibility of speaking fully and rightly about God, but is in both cases offered in a celebratory tone.

Perhaps apophaticism for apophaticism's sake*** has gone out of vogue. But again, to whatever extent it hasn't, this quotation (the Centuries were, after all, meant for memorization) could be remembered for the next time someone claims the via negativa as an end in itself.

* This spelling still kind of jars me.
** If this were a band name (which we can all agree should happen), what genre(s) would they play?
***I do rather hope that this is the first time that unwieldy phrase has been offered.

2 commenta:

augustinian said...

I'm not entirely sure if what you say can be justified by that particular quotation. Lossky is of course excellent on this.

Evagrius (another of Maximus' sources) actually points out the danger of thinking you've attained apophaticism - it's a good deal more difficult than facile Derrideans might think - relating it to vainglory, which is a more complex and fruitfully theological formulation than hubris, I think.

Having said that, I think that apophaticism is an aim in itself, with all the techniques given us by the above theologians, and for entirely different reasons than the phenomenologists'. And Milbank doesn't like me for this, but I'm sticking to my guns.

After all, wouldn't kataphaticism for kataphaticism's sake (sorry) be just as silly?

But I'm reading the centuries in about four books' time, and am willing to believe that I'll totally change my mind.

jeff biebighauser said...

Absolutely vainglory is a more helpful term. Well put.

Evagrius as Maximus' source? I mean sort of. How many of the Centuries are written specifically against Evagrius, though?

Kataphasis gratia kataphasis is, of course, just as silly. The point of the quote is (as you've put it) the very difficulty of apophasis; all I'm saying in interpreting it is that a cheap apophasis which sees itself as an easy starting point *or* as an end in itself does equal violence to real apophasis (more than it hurts kataphasis).

I'm not at all sure that your reading of the Centuries will change your mind. 1.100 comes kind of out of nowhere.

If sometime you want to write - here or preferably on your own site - what non-phenomenological aims you see for apophasis-as-an-end-in-itself, you bet I'd want to read it.