A Genealogy of Marion's Philosophy of Religion: Apparent Darkness

2. How to Avoid Idolatry: A Comparison of “Apophasis” in Gregory of Nyssa and Dionysius the Areopagite

two How to Avoid Idolatry: A Comparison of “Apophasis” in Gregory of Nyssa and Dionysius the Areopagite This truly is the vision of God: never to be satisfied in the desire to see him. —gregory of nyssa, V. Mos. 2.239 I am convinced in my mind that one may not disregard the received knowledge of divine things. I believe this not merely because one’s spirit naturally yearns for and seeks whatever contemplation of the supernatural may be attainable but also because the splendid arrangement of divine laws commands it. We are told not to busy ourselves with what is beyond us, since they are beyond what we deserve and are unattainable. But the law tells us to learn everything granted to us and to share these treasures generously with others. —dionysius the areopagite, DN 3.3 While for Gregory of Nyssa eros overthrows all limits as it hastens after the ever-greater God, with Denys the self-same eros is contained in its striving after infinity within two limits: the possible (hos ephikton) and the permitted (themiton, strictly speaking: what can be attained without sacrilege). —hans urs von balthasar, “Denys” in Glory of the Lord In the previous chapter I illustrated how Marion retrieves Gregory of Nyssa and Dionysius in one register, employing Gregory’s words in the service of an exposition of Dionysius and allowing one to speak in place of the other. The purpose of this chapter is to call into question a univocal retrieval of this sort and to examine the significant differences How to Avoid Idolatry . 45 between the apophaticisms of Gregory and Dionysius as encoded in the quotations above and summarized by Balthasar. The organization of this argument is complicated by the difficulty, even the impossibility, of neatly separating out “apophaticism” from either author’s vision. For both, apophasis is inherently and inseparably part of a cosmological and, even more specifically, a soteriological belief .1 Apophasis is understood incorrectly when it is thought to be a mere linguistic method of correcting proper speech about God; rather, apophasis involves the basic presupposition of how God and creation are essentially related and also the soteriological horizon of this relation , the end, or telos of it. Apophasis is only, in the beginning, of epistemological significance. A more comprehensive view, however, reveals both its ontological necessity and its anthropological consequences. For this reason, a comparative treatment of the diverse understandings of apophasis in Gregory and Dionysius will require not merely a discussion of language and naming but also of different notions of creation and of desire and how it is consummated. These themes, in turn, imply particular understandings of “participation,” “union,” “perfection ,” and “revelation” that must also be explored. This chapter compares the two writers following these categories. This undertaking does not constitute a comprehensive comparative analysis of Gregory and Dionysius;2 although the study may draw broadly from different elements of the thought of each, it does so only with a view toward their significance for different apophaticisms.3 Subsequent chapters will take up various elements introduced in this chapter’s comparison and discuss them with greater specificity. The argument will proceed thus: I will begin with (1) a survey of the comparative scholarship thus far and (2) a close reading of the depiction of Moses’ ascent into darkness as a crystallized image of apophasis found in Gregory’s Life of Moses and in Dionysius’ Mystical Theology 1:3. From there I will turn to (3) a direct comparison of each thinker’s philosophy of language. Already within the domain of language, its function and foundation, a sharp difference emerges between Gregory and Dionysius. These differences deepen when (4) the philosophy of language is situated within a robust vision of world, God, and the human being. These differences further imply (5) divergent understandings of human perfection and desire’s consummation. Finally, (6) we return to the linguistic domain in order to compare the characteristics of divine 46 . A Genealogy of Marion’s Philosophy of Religion revelation. Here the full divergence between Gregory’s interruptive and transgressive view of revelation and Dionysius’ originary and productive view is more visible. Throughout this comparison, my aim is not to demonstrate a disjunction or contradiction between the apophatic thought of Gregory and Dionysius, but to insist on the significant distinctiveness of each thinker. Before I begin this analysis, a brief comment on the notions of “idolatry” and “radicality...