Beiträge
The Supreme One
Its Transcendence and Its ‘Kataphatic’ Characteristics in Ioane Petritsi’s
Philosophy
In the prologue to his Commentary on Proclus’ Elements of theology Ioane
Petritsi, Georgian Neoplatonist of the twelfth century, argues that the main
subject of Proclus’ Elements is the theory of the supreme One. In Petritsi’s
opinion, Proclus’ merit was to elaborate the philosophy of the ‘pure’,
absolutely transcendent One which is unperceivable even for the Intellect. On
the other hand, the supreme One is, in Petritsi’s interpretation, the cause of
everything, including matter, and It has some positive (‘kataphatic’)
characteristics which cannot be separated from Its hyper-essence. These are,
mainly, Its causality and productivity, Its will and providential activity. The
aim of this article is to analyse, what the supreme One is in Petritsi’s
Commentary and to answer the following question: Do the absolute transcendence
of the supreme One and Its positive characteristics contradict each other or are
they in a certain way compatible with each other? I argue that for making the
transition from the first aspect of the supreme One (Its transcendence) to
another one (Its productivity) more coherent, Petritsi made an attempt to
introduce in the ontological hierarchy one more one after the supreme One and
before the Henads. In my opinion, this ‘second one’, which is almost inseparable
from the supreme transcendent One, is Its another aspect, representing Its
productive activity. For the same purpose, as I think, Petritsi identified the
creative aspect of the One with the Logos/the Son of God and, in certain cases,
also with Plato’s Demiurge.
Article outline
- Introduction
- Aim of the study
- The negative characteristics of the supreme One
- The positive characteristics of the supreme One
- Petritsi’s attempt to solve the aporia of the supreme One
- Conclusion
- Notes
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Alexidze, Lela
2021.
Michael Psellos and Ioane Petritsi on Intellect.
Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai Theologia Orthodoxa 66:1
► pp. 7 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.