The Three Modes of Discourse

          The three modes of discourse listed in an ascending hierarchic order are the purgative (apophatic), the illuminative (kataphatic), and the unitive (hyperphatic).  These three stages are also called, the “incipient, proficient, and perfect” [Knowles, 25].  I will now briefly define their meaning.  The apophatic level of discourse is the negative level, and is as known as the level of ‘unsaying.’  At this level one recognizes that the divine is really other, and thus it is not like our world.  It requires the practice of asceticism (aphairesis), the taking away or setting aside of the distractions of this world.  As I understand it, this ascetic denial is to be done through all the stages of the spiritual life, but it is associated with this level in particular.  The second level is the kataphatic level.  This level is positive in that it allows one to make positive statements about the One.  It is called illuminative because of the light after the darkness of purgation.  Finally one reaches the hyperphatic level.  This level unites the previous two levels of discourse in a unified mode.  It leads to a union or communion with the One.  These three modes of discourse must not be seen as simply forms of speech; instead, they must be seen as active, and as involving the whole being of the person going through the process.

          The NeoPlatonic triad is subordinationist and necessitarian in nature.  There is a diffusion of power from the One, which is beyond being, as it necessarily emanates the Nous, and more power is lost when the Nous necessarily emanates the World Soul.  Thus the second hypostasis is subordinate to the first, and the third hypostasis is subordinate to the second and the first.  Though Christianity recognizes a certain hierarchization within creation, it does not recognize any in the Trinity of God.  The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are co-eternal with each other and co-equal, and a further distinction between the two systems involves the fact that God is being, and along with this the idea that the life of the Trinity is centered in Love, not in necessity.  Thus the Son unlike the Nous is not generated from necessity.  The persons (hypostases) of the Trinity are essentially one and are distinct only through personal relation.  There are four relations in the Godhead: paternity, filiation, active spiration, and passive spiration.  Because active spiration is shared by the Father and the Son it is not a distinct personal relation, so it is not a person.  Passive spiration is a distinct personal relation in that it distinguishes the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son.  A certain amount of subordination of the Son and the Holy Spirit to the Father is acceptable when speaking of the economic Trinity (i.e., the Trinity as revealed in Sacred History), but absolutely no subordination can be spoken of when discussing the immanent Trinity (i.e., the inner essential life of the Godhead).

The World as Emanation

          NeoPlatonism views the world as an emanation from the One, through the Nous and the World Soul in an eternal cycle; while Christianity sees the world as a created and contingent reality.  The world is a necessary consequence of the emanations from the One in the NeoPlatonic system; while within the Christian system it is seen as created by God out of the super-abundance of His Love (Agape).  Augustine would accept the idea of a certain amount of transitive power issuing out of created beings, but God is the efficient cause of creation and this causality is not transferable.  The NeoPlatonic system makes the One remote and completely transcendent; while the Christian system sees God as transcendent, yet also as immanent in that He sustains all things in being, as St. Paul said, “In Him we live and move and have our being” [Acts 17:28].  Thus unlike NeoPlatonism, Christianity sees God as being involved in his creation, a creation that He brought into being out of Love, and not from necessity.

Tolma

          The word ‘tolma’ has connotations of pride, self-assurance, self-recognition and courage, and thus it can be understood in a positive light, but it also can be viewed in a negative sense as a type of rebellion or revolt, and a type of independence in which a subject does not recognize that it is dependent on another for its existence.  When taken in this sense it has an overweening courage, and it suffers from a type of self-aggrandizement.  This is similar to what Narcissus experienced when he saw his reflection in the pool of water, and it is in this sense that the Nous becomes enamored with itself.

          The first hypostasis is the One and it is understood to be beyond being, and as a consequence of this it is pre-conscious; while the Nous, the second hypostasis which is necessarily generated from the One, is the beginning of being and of consciousness.  The third hypostasis is the World Soul and it necessarily emanates from the Nous, and then from it comes the world.  The world is the level of becoming.  So for Plotinus, being and knowledge arise with the emanation of the Nous from the One; while becoming is centered in the world, which properly speaking does not have being, but only has becoming. The next point concerns duality, and for Plotinus it is at the level of the Nous that duality (the dyad) appears.  There are two aspects to this duality; the first is the subject-object duality, and the second is the subject-predicate duality.  The Nous sees itself as subject, but looks back at the One as object, as something other than itself.  Thus the Nous is separated from the One and is distinct from the it, yet it now contemplates the One.

          Thought is necessarily propositional.  To understand anything you need a subject-predicate relation.  All our complete thoughts involve this duality.  In order to understand something we must take it apart, we must divide it.  As an example, take the statement, “I am a human being”; this statement is true, but in order to convey this I had to divide myself and express this truth through a subject-predicate relation.  So, rational thought requires multiplicity.  The One does not experience this duality because it is beyond understanding and is thus pre-rational and non-propositional.  I personally see a problem with this in that man, like the Nous, in some sense must contemplate the One, but since the One is beyond being it follows that it is completely unknowable, since to attempt through reason to know it, would logically require dividing the undividable.  But perhaps this difficulty exists only in my mind, and I simply may be unable to grasp the full meaning which Plotinus intends to establish through his philosophical system concerning the nature of the One.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

David Knowles.  The Evolution of Medieval Thought.  (London:  Longman Group Limited, 1988).

The Bible:  Revised Standard Version.  (New York:  American Bible Society, 1971).  

Neo-Platonism and Christianity

by Steven Todd Kaster

San Francisco State University

Philosophy 302:  Medieval Philosophy

Final Examination (Group A)

Professor J. Glanville

9 May 2000

Copyright © 2000-2025 Steven Todd Kaster