The final chapter of the book concludes that apophasis emerges as a distinctive manner of speaking about unspeakable but meaningful phenomena through kataphatic strategies. The concerns of the current project are the possibility of an ethical apophasis in the principal both in Principal Upanishads and medieval Christianity. What is apparent is the possibility of an interpretive opening for a theory that bespeaks a negative moral theology both in the Upanishads and Medieval Christianity. The foundation of apophatic tradition is the derogatory terminology that refers to divinities. It is predicated on the idea that everything meaningfully said is contingent upon the unconditioned and unutterable. For this reason, the negationist language employed by the Upanishadic sages and the medieval Christian thinkers conveyed the profound nature of the divinities. The derogatory language concerning divinities has been the most striking remnant of the apophatic tradition, which was never limited to discussing the gods alone. The pre-Socratic Greeks and ancient Vedic sages employed the language of negation to refute these hallowed objects’ absolute transcendence. Throughout this study, I have emphasized the thesis that everything that can be said in a meaningful way depends on what cannot be said or spoken. Both the Upanishads and the medieval Christian philosophers have described the experience of failure of speech and its limitations when confronted with the most profound phenomena. For this reason, whether it is the Upanishads or the medieval Christian thinkers, the most primitive and unintelligible manifestations of divinities appear first in their articulations. The pre-Socratic Greeks and the ancient Vedic Rishis denied the positive qualities of God by using the language of negation. The constant theme in negative theology today is the increasing fascination with negation as opposed to affirmation; it is the affirmation of the inadequacy of human language to express what is incredibly complex (the Other) or what is absurdly simple (the Brahman). Such a turn to Via Negativa in Upanishads and Medieval Christianity could be seen as a development in understanding the nature of Reality. In brief, one can affirm that via negativa language, we can plunge into the depth of human consciousness. Finally, we can affirm that Postmodern philosophers, whether their object of knowledge, desire, or action is divine, human, or non-human, use the rhetorical devices of apophasis to express ambiguity, complexity, and indeterminacy of the object and thus the postmodern apophatic turn differs from traditional apophasis. This modernist confidence, rooted in the meta-narratives of religion, culture, politics, and silence, is subverted by the well-known postmodern suspicion of absolute knowledge.

Summary and Concluding Remarks

章节
发表日期：

2025年

查看全文

Sebastian Velassery

摘要

The final chapter of the book concludes that apophasis emerges as a distinctive manner of speaking about unspeakable but meaningful phenomena through kataphatic strategies. The concerns of the current project are the possibility of an ethical apophasis in the principal both in Principal Upanishads and medieval Christianity. What is apparent is the possibility of an interpretive opening for a theory that bespeaks a negative moral theology both in the Upanishads and Medieval Christianity. The foundation of apophatic tradition is the derogatory terminology that refers to divinities. It is predicated on the idea that everything meaningfully said is contingent upon the unconditioned and unutterable. For this reason, the negationist language employed by the Upanishadic sages and the medieval Christian thinkers conveyed the profound nature of the divinities. The derogatory language concerning divinities has been the most striking remnant of the apophatic tradition, which was never limited to discussing the gods alone. The pre-Socratic Greeks and ancient Vedic sages employed the language of negation to refute these hallowed objects’ absolute transcendence. Throughout this study, I have emphasized the thesis that everything that can be said in a meaningful way depends on what cannot be said or spoken. Both the Upanishads and the medieval Christian philosophers have described the experience of failure of speech and its limitations when confronted with the most profound phenomena. For this reason, whether it is the Upanishads or the medieval Christian thinkers, the most primitive and unintelligible manifestations of divinities appear first in their articulations. The pre-Socratic Greeks and the ancient Vedic Rishis denied the positive qualities of God by using the language of negation. The constant theme in negative theology today is the increasing fascination with negation as opposed to affirmation; it is the affirmation of the inadequacy of human language to express what is incredibly complex (the Other) or what is absurdly simple (the Brahman). Such a turn to Via Negativa in Upanishads and Medieval Christianity could be seen as a development in understanding the nature of Reality. In brief, one can affirm that via negativa language, we can plunge into the depth of human consciousness. Finally, we can affirm that Postmodern philosophers, whether their object of knowledge, desire, or action is divine, human, or non-human, use the rhetorical devices of apophasis to express ambiguity, complexity, and indeterminacy of the object and thus the postmodern apophatic turn differs from traditional apophasis. This modernist confidence, rooted in the meta-narratives of religion, culture, politics, and silence, is subverted by the well-known postmodern suspicion of absolute knowledge.