Podcast episode
June 27, 2020
Episode 96: From Word to Silence: The Rise of the Apophatic in Late Antiquity
[Correction: For some reason we locate Basilides in this episode in the first century. That would be something! He was probably born in the first century, but he wrote, of course, in the early second, which is still striking enough for the kind of intensely-recursive apophatic language he employs.]
Remember the good old days, when all of reality could be comprehended by human language, and nothing lay beyond the power of human thought? Well, now it’s late antiquity, God is radically ineffable, and human language is, at best, an imperfect instrument. But fear not: we can still discuss the ineffable, using the paradoxical linguistic tool of apophatic language!
In this episode we deliver the long-promised discussion of the rise of ideas of absolute transcendence, and thus of absolute ineffability, in the Middle Platonist and Neopythagorean milieux, and development of linguistic tools for attempting to discuss the ineffable, transcendent reality of God, or the One, or the First Cause (in a way it doesn’t matter which name you use, since all names miss the mark when dealing with that which transcends all words).
There will be paradox, there will be labyrinthine deconstructions of statements as soon as they are made, there will be much mental suffering. But there will also be discussion of the relationship between apophasis and esotericism, and of the commonly-received scholarly story of the rise of apophatic thinking and language, which we summarise and also question.
Works Cited in this Episode:
Primary:
- Apuleius: indictus, innominabilis: De Plat. I.5; cf. Apol. 64.7. De deo Soc. III.124: [Plato] prædicet hunc [sc. deorum parentem] solum maiestatis incredibili quadam mimietate et ineffabili non posse penuria sermonis humani quavis oratione vel modice comprehendi.
- Aristotle on Cratylus: Metaph. 1010a12-13.
- Basilides ap. Hippol. Hær. VII.20 ( PG XVI/3 3302): ἦν, φησὶν, [sc. Basilides] ὅτε ἦν οὐδέν, ἀλλ ́ οὐδὲ τὸ οὐδὲν ἦν τι τῶν ὄντων, ἀλλὰ ψιλῶς καὶ ἀνυπονοήτως δίχα παντὸς σοφίσματος ἦν ὅλως οὐδὲ ἕν. Οταν δὲ λέγω, φησὶν, τὸ ἦν, οὐχ ὅτι ἦν λέγω, ἀλλ ́ ἵνα σημάνω τοῦτα ὅπερ βούλομαι δεῖξαι, λέγω, φησὶν, ὅτι ἦν ὅλως οὐδέν. ̓́Εστι γάρ, φησὶν, ἐκεῖνο οὐχ ἁπλῶς ἄρρητον, ὃ ὀνομάζεται· ἄρρητον γοῦν αὐτὸ καλοῦμεν, ἐκεῖνο δὲ οὐδὲ ἄρρητον· καὶ γὰρ τὸ οὐδ ́ ἄρρητον οὐκ ἄρρητον ὀνομάζεται, ἀλλὰ ἐστί, φησὶν, ὑπεράνω παντὸς ὀνόματος ὀνομαζομένου. We cite the translation at Banner 2018 (see below), p. 104.
- Plato: Seventh Letter on the ‘unsayability’ of the highest philosophical knowledge: 341c4-d1.
Secondary:
For Dodds, Festugière, Mortley, Sells, and Whittaker, see Recommended Reading below.
- The esoteric wonders of ‘The Secret’: Rhonda Byrne. The Secret. Atria, 2006..
- Murray on the ‘failure of nerve’: see the third essay, on Hellenistic religion, in Gilbert Murray. Four Stages of Greek Religion. Studies based on a course of lectures delivered in April 1912 at Columbia University. Columbia University Press, 1912.
Recommended Reading:
- A. H. Armstrong. Negative Theology. Downside Review, 95:176–189, 1973.
- Nicholas Banner. Philosophic Silence and the ‘One’ in Plotinus. The University Press, Cambridge, 2018.
- Dierdre Carabine. The Unknown God: Negative Theology in the Platonic Tradition, Plato to Eriugena. Eerdmans, Louvain, 1995.
- Odo Casel. De philosophorum graecorum silentio mystico. A. Toepelmann, Giessen, 1919.
- E. R. Dodds. The Greeks and the Irrational. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1968.
- Heinrich Dörrie. Die Frage nach dem Transzendenten im Mittelplatonismus. In Les sources de Plotin: dix exposés et discussions Vandoeuvres- Genève, 21-29 aôut 1957, pages 193–223. Fondation Hardt, Vandoevres/Géneve, 1960.
- A.-J. Festugière. La révélation d’Hermès Trismégiste. Les Belles Lettres, Paris, 2014.
- Raoul Mortley. From Word to Silence. Hanstein, Bonn, 1986. 2 vols.
- Michael Sells. Apophasis in Plotinus: A Critical Approach. Harvard Theological Review, 78(1/2):47–65, Jan. – Apr. 1985.
- Idem. Mystical Languages of Unsaying. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1994.
- J. Trouillard. Valeur critique de la mystique plotinienne. Revue philosophique de Louvain, (63):431–444, August 1961.
- Idem. Théologie negative et autoconstitution psychique chez les néoplatoniciens. In Savoir, faire, espérer: les limites de la raison, volume 1, pages 307–321. Facultés Universitaires St.-Louis, Brussels, 1976.
- J. Whittaker. Neopythagoreanism and the Transcendent Absolute. Symbolae Osloenses, (48):77–86, 1973.
- Idem. Numenius and Alcinous on the First Principle. Phoenix, 32(2):144–154, Summer 1978. John Whittaker. Epekeina Nou Kai Ousias. Vigiliae Christianae, 23(2):91–104, Jun. 1969.
- H. A. Wolfson. Albinus and Plotinus on Divine Attributes. Harvard Theological Review, 45(2):115–130, Apr. 1952.
- Idem. Negative Attributes in the Church Fathers and the Gnostic Basilides. Harvard Theological Review, (50):145–156, 1957
Themes
Apophatic Writing, Basilides, Esoteric Christianity, Gnōsis, Ineffability, Late Platonism, Middle Platonism, Mysticism, Overview, Philosophy, Plato
Thomas Kiefer
July 3, 2020
For those who know the literature better than I, has anyone postulated the influence of Buddhism on this topic? Nirvana/Nibana is indescribable positively, and either must be experienced, or described negatively (it’s not this, not that, etc.). It certainly seems conceivable that this apophaticism drifted westwards from the Hellenic Kingdoms in the 3rd century BCE on. Relatedly, the oldest *written* text in Pali/Buddhism I believe is Melinda’s (=Menander’s=Menander I of Bactria) Questions, circa 100 BCE, which is structured somewhat like a Socratic dialogue.
Earl Fontainelle
July 4, 2020
Fascinating question!
Anyone?
I would wonder from the first whether the Buddhism of the Mauryan period is apophatic in the first place — I could imagine it’s not being. If it is, things do get interesting.
Thomas Kiefer
July 11, 2020
The alpha-privative is used extensively in early Buddhist terminology:
–Nirvana/Nibbana= described as e.g., amata (Pali)/amrta (Skt.) from a -mr, lit. not-death; asankhata (Pali) from a-sankhata not-formed/not-conditioned
–Non-self (the key idea in Buddhism)=anatta (Pali)/anatman (Skt.) from an-atta literally not-self
–The Three Wholesome Roots (these ‘roots’ might be roughly equivalent to Stoic ‘impulses’ or hormai): alobha/not-greed, adosa/not-hate, amosa/not-delusion
If anyone thinks there’s a research project here, connecting early Buddhism to apophatic discourse, feel free to use it, with no need to cite me or anything like that. I’m not capable of doing such a project.
Earl Fontainelle
July 12, 2020
Dear Thomas,
And let’s not forget ahimsa, ‘not harming’. But my question at this juncture is, how ‘early’ is ‘early’? What’s the dating on this terminology?
Thomas Kiefer
July 12, 2020
Your question is one of the reasons why I’m not capable of this project. One would need a little more than an utterly cursory knowledge of Pali/Prakrit and Sanskit (not scholar-level, just a fair amount more) and its history. Also, some familiarity of the Upanishads/Vedanta, of which I have virtually zero. There is evidence that there was a fair amount of philosophical/terminological borrowing and “debate”, for lack of a better word, between Buddhism and the Upanishads, with much more of the latter trying to appropriate the former and to make it Hindu. So, it’d be interesting to see how much of apophaticism exists in the Upanishads, all of which are pretty much pre-“year Zero”, if not much older. If its there, then the Buddhists almost certainly had it too.
Milinda’s Questions would be the place to start, and well as the Gandharan texts, in the hunt for dating this vocabulary, as well as Ashoka’s Pillars and edicts. I don’t think there’s anything in the last that would be helpful.
Alexander Nader
July 7, 2020
what about the influence of heraclitic thinking? Was there any renaissance of his thoughts? For me, a lot of Heraclit’s sentences are apofathic too.
Earl Fontainelle
July 7, 2020
Alexander,
That is a really interesting question. The ‘renaissance’ of Heraclitus was, well, the Renaissance, but was there are-reading of him in late antiquity as an apophatic writer? I don’t know off the top. I suggest Hadot’s book La voile d’Isis as a good place to start on this one.
Alexander Nader
July 7, 2020
At least Clement of Alexandria cites him quite a times, including a note and citation on magi (see Bremmer et al, Metamorphosis of Magic). And DK 22 B 67 (ὁ θεὸς ἡμέρη εὐφρόνη, χειμὼν θέρος, πόλεμος εἰρήνη, κόρος λιμός…) is purely apophatic, iMHO
Earl Fontainelle
July 8, 2020
Dear Alex, quite right, forget Hadot, just go straight to Clement and you’ll probably find what you are looking for.
This kind of parallelism of opposites/coincidentia oppositorum certainly has its place in theologies which are apophatic, but whether or not saying ‘god is … peace/war, fullness/famine’ is apophatic is kind of a technical question. Remember, ἀπόφασις means something literally like ‘denial’ or technically ‘negation’ in the sense of ‘denial of a non-accidental predicate’, so if there is no negative word like ‘no’, ‘none’, ‘not’, etc, it’s not formally apophasis.
I guess, since these opposites cannot coexist together in an everyday universe of discourse, the discourse must be pointing to something outside the everyday u.o.d., hence, it must be apophatic. Heraclitus is not, however, denying the possibility of predication of god, or not explicitly anyway: he is not saying, for example, ‘god is beyond all human activities, such that either peace or war could be applied to him with equal (lack of) accuracy’ — this would be classical apophasis. However, is this implicit in what Heraclitus is saying?
If yes, he’s classically apophatic, and way before his time!
If no, then he’s doing something else, also super-interesting, but maybe not classifiable as apophatic.
Thomas Kiefer
July 10, 2020
There is a possibility that apophasis deveoped organically on its own, like e.g., the preoccupation with language developed organically from seeds planted in Kant to the explosion of linguistic philosophy in the early 20th century on. I argue in my book Aristotle’s Theory of Knowledge ch. 4 (Continuum 2007–shameless self-promotion!!!) that nous for Aristotle was non-discursive/non-linguistic thinking, so if I’m right, that could function as a kind of seed that developed into a full-blown preoccupation with ‘things that can’t be expressed’. (I’m more inclined to think there was a nudge or help in this development, if not outright adoption, from Buddhism, but I have no direct evidence for that at the moment!)
Famously, by the way, the conclusion of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is esoteric/apophatic: “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”
Joseph Wickland
April 3, 2021
This Podcast episode was terrible
This Podcast episode was great.
on a serious note, is Heraclitus thought to be related to the tradition of apothasis in anyway? he was very contradictory in his sayings although wasn’t necessarily talking about grand metaphysical concepts
Earl Fontainelle
April 4, 2021
Joseph,
See the comments above. This idea has been considered and left, well, cryptically open ….
Philip brown
February 19, 2023
If God can be “experienced” in any way whatsoever, then there must be something that can be “communicated ” about the experienced, and whatever can be “said ‘ about this communication must be something sayable. But then God cannot be completely ineffable. Am I missing something?
Earl Fontainelle
February 19, 2023
Hello, Philip.
Well, if we take the case of Plotinus, the ‘experience’ of the highest God is itself not an experience — the encounter with the One is itself hedged with apophatic constraints, never mind the One’s nature in and of itself. A thoroughgoing apophatist would deny the validity of what you are saying: even negative attributes (e.g. ‘God is not evil’) are improper when applied to the ineffable reality.
Philip brown
February 19, 2023
Interesting! Thank you for doing this podcast.