So I’m working my way through Pseudo-Dionysius’ Divine Names, posting my summaries and various thoughts about the work here. Today I will be briefly discussing some examples and analogies that Pseudo-Dionysius uses for aspects of the divine reality.
What surprised me when reading The Divine Names was the down to earth and familiar sounding nature of his examples. If you’ve ever been given the circle analogy in explanation of how God can have different properties, that analogy is in The Divine Names. There are other analogies that you probably haven’t heard which are deeply familiar seeming. Let’s go over a couple and try to understand their upshot.
First, the circle analogy. In the context it appears in the work it’s difficult to see it’s upshot. But it goes as follows:
It is according to these gifts that the [supreme] things which are participated in, but which do not themselves participate [in anything higher], are praised though the participations and those who participate. Now this is unified and one and common to the whole divinity, that the entire wholeness is participated in by each of those who participate in it; none participates in only a part. It is rather like the case of a circle. The center point of the circle is shared by the surrounding radii. Or take the example of a seal. There are numerous impressions of the seal and these all have a share in the original prototype; it is the same whole seal in each of the impressions and none participates in only a part.
As best I can tell, the circle and the seal analogy are here to help explain one thing . Perhaps we are explaining the fact that a trinitarian deity may have each of the attributes off the divine while not being melded into one divine person. The idea is that two different things (like a circle and the radii) can share the same numerically identical property(a center point) without being turned into one. But his point is stronger. He wants his examples to show that a reality can be accurately described as having certain properties despite being differentiated. The circle remains an undifferentiated whole despite being accurately described as having a center point and accurately described as having radii which share that center point. This is meant to help us be able to see how we might be able to accurately affirm things of a perfectly simple deity.
In the next installation I’ll summarize this second portion I’ve read.
Come back every MWF for more discussion of philosophy, pop culture, society and their interaction!
Peace be with you.