გება-გამოსვლა-დაბრუნების ნეოპლატონურ-პროკლური ტრიადის ტრანსფორმაცია ფსევდო-დიონისე არეოპაგელთან
Loading...
Date
2021
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Theoretical indebtedness of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite to general Neoplatonic
principles and his direct dependence upon Proclean sources is nowadays
almost universally accepted. The evidence of terminological and conceptual correspondences
between Pseudo-Dionysius and Neoplatonism, especially its Proclean
version, indicates that Corpus Areopagiticum establishes formal continuity with regard
to Neoplatonism. Nevertheless, it is controversial to what extent the content implied
by Pseudo-Dionysius in the Neoplatonic vocabulary and forms of thought coincides with original Neoplatonic sense and signifi cance, in other words, to what extent
the essence of his doctrine is Neoplatonic. The present paper aims to demonstrate the
transformation of the fundamental Neoplatonic-Proclean triad of remaining, procession,
and reversion (μονή, πρόοδος, ἐπιστροφή) in Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite,
for which we give an account of how Proclus understood the aforementioned triad
fi rst and then analyze the relevant passages of De divinis nominibus where this triad
occurs. For Proclus the logic of reality is triadic. The triad of remaining, procession,
and reversion expresses the dynamics of the existence of all reality and every single
entity. This triad depicts the process of casual evolution of reality as well as the underlying
scheme of its functioning. Pseudo-Dionysius adopts this triad from Proclus
but his understanding of the triad and, therefore, his vision of the evolution and functioning
of reality diff ers from that of Proclus. In our opinion, pursuing the transformation
of the Neoplatonic-Proclean triad of remaining, procession, and reversion can
play a key role in grasping the particular nature of the Pseudo-Dionysian universe.
In Proclus, the triad of remaining, procession, and reversion has no eschatological
but ontological significance. Hence, it does not mean the abolition of the
procession, restoration to the primordial condition, and coincidence with the cause
in identity, but instead the formation of an independent reality of the effect through
getting determined from the cause and becoming similar (not identical) to the cause.
Therefore, for Proclus, the structure of being is triadic and entails the mixture or synthesis
of antithetical principles such as Limit and Unlimited, One and Many, Monad
and Dyad, or Remaining and Procession. In Pseudo-Dionysius, the third term of the
triad – reversion – gets a new, Christian eschatological meaning. In this respect, DN
VI 2, 191, 15–192, 3 (Suchla) is crucial. In this passage, the reversion is associated
with the resurrection of bodies. With this shift of the sense of Neoplatonic reversion
from ontological to eschatological one Pseudo-Dionysius undermines the Proclean
triadic dialectics. He never accentuates the triadic nature of being. There is no use
of the term of the mixture (μικτόν) in his texts; the term of the synthesis appears but
not in the ontological sense, and the terms of the triad and triadic occur only in the
Christian trinitarian context.
Description
კონფერენცია ეძღვნება ჭაბუა ამირეჯიბის დაბადებიდან 100 წლის იუბილეს/ The Conference is Dedicated to the 100th Anniversary of Chabua Amirejibi
Keywords
ანტიკური ლიტერატურა, ნეოპლატონიზმი, არეოპაგელი, Ancient literature, Neoplatonism, Areopagus
Citation
საერთაშორისო სამეცნიერო კონფერენცია: 1921 წლის ისტორიულ-კულტურული მოვლენები: ხედვა საუკუნის შემდეგ, თეზისები, 2021, გვ. 141-143/ International Scientific Conference: HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL EVENTS OF 1921: THE VISION A CENTURY LATER, Theses, 2021, pp.: 141-143