This article investigates the palimpsest reception of Pseudo-Dionysius (ca. 500) in the metaphysics of Nicholas of Cusa (1401–1464). The article covers Cusa’s political theory and metaphysics, which are intertwined. Reading Cusa against the backdrop of an analysis of Pseudo-Dionysius’ metaphysics in a preceding article, the author, in a synthetic conclusion, isolates seven Dionysic ‘trails’ (S1 to S7) in Cusa’s metaphysics: the interpretation of transcendence as bound to immanence; the affirmation of God’s transcendence in the world (or a metaphysics of ‘creation (...) as teophany’); the radical transcendence and simultaneous radical immanence of God (that is, God as ‘Beingness’); fundamental restrictions of language and the analogical ‘Naming’ of God; creation as a system of dialectical symbols about God; the analogical participation of the subject in creation; and unification (reditus, the ‘flowing of things back to God’). The Dionysic trails in Cusa’s metaphysics are described as a noteworthy, if not important, palimpsest in the corpus of late Medieval philosophy and is indicative of what the author puts forward as ‘discursive memory’, which is presented as a modern-critical concept. (shrink)

This article, by analysing, annotating en interpreting the most recent research in all relevant departments, provides a fresh and updated overview of the Neoplatonic metaphysics of Pseudo-Dionysius (ca. 500). After providing an introduction to Dionysius’ metaphysics in terms of the contributions of Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism, the article explores his broader philosophical system. A number of traits that are uniquely Dionysic-metaphysical, are eventually isolated: the interpretation of transcendence as bound to immanence; the affirmation of God’s transcendence in the world (that (...) is, a metaphysics of ‘creation as teophany’; following E.D. Perl); the radical transcendence and simultaneous radical immanence of God (that is, God as ‘Beingness’); fundamental restrictions of language and the analogical ‘Naming’ of God; creation as a system of dialectical symbols about God; the analogical participation of the subject in creation; and unification (reditus, the ‘flowing of things back to God’). These traits are utilised to reappraise the metaphysics of Nicholas of Cusa (1401–1464) in a subsequent article. (shrink)

One of the most intriguing characters of Late Antiquity is the author who wrote under the pseudonym ‘Dionysius, the Areopagite’. Although the 19th century German scholarship challenged the authenticity of the Corpus Areopagiticum, the interest in this singular synthesis of Greek Neoplatonist philosophy with Christian thought remains significant. Usually, the works of the corpus are organized according to their internal logic: departing from affirmations we find negations excellent, starting with the cataphatic method we prepare apophaticism. It is customary to point (...) the dialectical structure of the areopagitica, for instance in comparison with authors such as Proclus. However, this kind of remarks undervalue the distinctive features of a profoundly ‘work in process’ speculation. This paper aims to describe the Dionysian system and its first principle’s absolute difference, synonym of God’s ineffability and transcendence, in order to discuss how speech or thought of it still may subsist. Even if this One is ineffable and transcendent, it can nevertheless ‘be’, this including to be ‘known’ and ‘said’, but differently from typical assertions of being, intelligence, and speech. This very otherness can be found translated through a positing beyond (ὑπέρ), a linguistic device which translates the author’s whole philosophical thesis on the processes of negation and their overcoming. (shrink)

The writings of Pseudo-Dionysius are a mixture of Christian thought, Late Greek philosophy and mainly neo-Platonic philosophy, which are easily integrated with religion because of his transcendence. Dionysius's view of beauty is described in Asma Elahi. It seems that his views on beauty also exist in the wisdom of illumination, so a comparison can be made between the views of Dionysius and Sheikh Ishraq on beauty. Suhrawardi discusses beauty with themes such as Noor Al-Anvar, more insight, the high ability of (...) mystics to understand beauty, and the light that causes beauty, beauty and perfection and Dionysius refers to the trinity, infinity, connection with God, the source of beauty and etc. in his proposed criteria and also he tells about the final end of his views in the areas of origin and influence, as well as the manifestation of beauty in objects. In this study, by examining the views of Dionysius and Sheikh Ishraq, it shows the similarities between these two views. (shrink)