Apophaticism is among the most prominent —and yet most frequently misunderstood— chapters of Christian gnoseology. Much of the difficulty stems from the confusion caused by the identical use of two fundamentally distinct notions of ‘apophaticism’: that of the Christian West and that of the Christian East. Although both share common roots —in the early Church Fathers, with the writings of St. Dionysius the Areopagite as a key point of reference— they eventually diverged into two markedly different directions.

1. In the West, apophaticism developed into a specific method of approaching and knowing God: one that refrains from affirming God’s positive qualities or attributes (i.e., what God is), and instead proceeds via negation (i.e., what God is not, or what we are unable to say about Him). In other words, it is a human attempt to think and speak about God in spite of our fundamental incapacity to know Him, whether fully or even partially. This incapacity —be it absolute or partial— is attributed to the ontological gap that separates human nature from the divine essence.

There is no single, unified version of Western apophaticism. To put it simply, in some instances it appears merely as the direct opposite of the affirmative —or cataphatic— approach, which seeks to describe God through positive attributes such as ‘omnibenevolent’, ‘omniscient’, or ‘omnipotent’. In other cases, within a more elaborate gnoseological framework, it appears as one element of the scholastic ‘via triplex’: the so-called ‘negative way’, or via negativa (also known as via negationis or via remotionis). Alongside the ‘way of causality’ (via causalitatis) and the ‘way of eminence’ (via eminentiae), it constitutes a threefold path to the knowledge of the ontologically superior God, by analogy with our knowledge of the ontologically inferior world.[1] Moreover, in some of its variations, apophaticism came to be identified with medieval Christian mysticism. For medieval mystics, apophaticism offered a means of liberating the mind from the constraints imposed by conceptually derived attributes —such as omnibenevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence— thus allowing it to remain free and receptive to a form of direct knowledge of God that transcends rationality: a ‘hyper-logical’ or supra-rational encounter with the divine.[2] [2]

In any case —whether we are speaking of scholasticism or of Western mysticism— the question of knowledge is framed from the standpoint of the individual and their personal perceptual capacities, whether rational or otherwise. It constitutes an attempt to discover an effective and valid method for individual access to the truth of the divine. The outcome is either (a) an epistemological agnosticism, ranging from radical irrationalism to moderate relativism, or (b) a form of mysticism grounded in emotional or other transcendental faculties of perception — where, in this context, ‘person’ refers strictly to the individual self.

2. In the case of the East, apophaticism is not merely a particular epistemological approach, but an intrinsic feature of the ecclesiastical mode of being — and of the way the member of the Church relates, or ought to relate, to the truth of things. As Christos Yannaras puts it, apophaticism is “the denial that we can exhaust truth in its formulation.”[3] In this context, apophaticism is not intended merely as a response to the epistemological gap between divine and human nature, but more broadly as an expression of the inherent imperfection and open-ended, dynamic character of every existential relationship — whether with God or with the world.[4]

It should be noted that, in Orthodox epistemology, all knowledge —whether of God or of created things— is understood as the expression of an existential relationship. Certain aspects of this relationship can be adequately experienced and communicated, while others remain beyond expression or articulation. This is why St. John of Damascus affirms: “Whoever would speak or hear about God must know beyond any doubt that, in matters concerning theology and the Dispensation, not all things are inexpressible, nor are all things expressible; and not all things are unknowable, nor are all things knowable.”[5] There exists a whole spectrum of possibilities: beginning with what is insufficiently experienced, moving on to what is experienced but cannot be communicated, and culminating in what can be both experienced and shared. As St. John further clarifies: “What can be known is one thing, and what can be spoken another — just as speaking is one thing and knowing another.”[6] It is important to emphasize that St. John of Damascus speaks indiscriminately with regard to “theology and the Dispensation”. In both cases —whether the reference is to God or to the world— the issue concerns the opening of a path for an existential relationship between two poles: the knowing human subject and the knowable God or world. And within this imperfect human capacity to relate to and to know the world, we must first and foremost include our relationship with, and thus our knowledge of, other human beings — and, preeminently, of our own self.

In all these cases, the linguistic formulation that expresses one’s knowledge of the other should be understood as an open path toward the being to which it refers — not as a substitute for it. The definition or description is an ‘image’ (an ‘icon’) of what is defined, not its very truth. Affirmative or positive formulations, understood as images, are in themselves acceptable, yet they remain relative: they do not fully coincide with the truth, nor do they exhaust it. The most refined expression of this apophatic use of language and reason is found in the combination of positive and negative formulations —such as hyperousios ousia (‘superessential essence’), nous anoetos (‘mindless mind’), and logos arretos (‘unutterable word’)— all referring to God; or chora tou achoritou (‘the dwelling place of the Uncontainable’) referring to the All-Holy Mother of Christ. Through this ‘technique’, positive and negative expressions are not simply contrasted but mutually negate one another as closed conceptual definitions, while simultaneously complementing each other as images that gesture toward what is to be perceived — without claiming to contain or replace it.

3. Let there be no misunderstanding: what is negated through this conceptual mutual cancellation is not rational formulation itself, but our attachment to it — our being bound by it. And this holds not only for the explicitly apophatic dipoles mentioned above, but for any conceptual formulation, even those that appear, at first glance, to be entirely affirmative. Take, for instance, what could arguably be considered the most ‘apophatic’ of all so-called affirmative ideas: that of the One Triune God. For no matter how much theological reflection and conceptual effort the Church has invested in articulating the notion of God as one essence/nature (ousia/physis) in three substances/persons (hypostaseis/prosopa), the fact remains that, for Orthodox Christianity, the Trinity is not grounded in any necessity —be it rational, metaphysical, or otherwise— nor does it stem from any individual ‘mystical’ experience. Rather, it emerges from the communally acknowledged, historically transmitted experience of the three divine persons acting in perfect unity —as one indivisible God— in continuity with the One God of the Old Testament. It is the mystery of ‘unity in distinction’ and ‘distinction in unity’, empirically encountered in its existential source, and in its most absolute and complete expression: God.

But, as already noted, this principle applies not only to God. The fundamental theological concepts that concern the world and the human being must likewise be approached apophatically. A characteristic example is the concept of the soul. Despite the wealth of conceptual elaboration it has received —whether within the dualistic framework of ‘body and soul’ or the tripartite model of ‘body, soul, and spirit’— it, too, must be treated apophatically: not as an exhaustively defined notion, but as an image or reference to that very dimension of the living human being which, par excellence, eludes all mental definition.[7] The way to understand concept-images such as ‘eternal life’ must also be apophatic. After all, how could there be a purely affirmative understanding of ‘eternity’? Should it be conceived as the infinite extension of time as we empirically experience it? Such a view would amount to a form of mental idolatry. Hence, ‘eternity’ —understood apophatically— can only signify existence beyond any cognitively accessible perception of natural spacetime.

These formulations —whether negative, paradoxical, or conditional— lead to a relativization of logic, but not to its rejection. On the contrary, they presuppose logic, while simply affirming its relative and contextual character. They do not negate reason, but rather subordinate it to the primacy of relationship. From Heraclitus’s notion of the xynos logos (the shared or common reason) to the Christian Ecclesia —a word derived from the Greek ek (out of) and klēsis (calling)— it is relationship that constitutes both the source of reason and the ultimate criterion of truth. In this light, Eastern apophaticism does not lead to irrationalism or to individualistic mysticism, but to an iconic use of language —speech as image— that serves to reveal the communal (ecclesial) experience and relationship with God and the world. What we are dealing with, therefore, is not a mystical leap from reason to non-rational perceptual capacities (emotional or otherwise), because such capacities are already integrated —implicitly or explicitly— into this image-like use of reason. The truly mystical element, in this sense, is not the irrational or the non-rational, but the deeper and more authentic content of logos —of reason and speech— where logos does not confine us within its formulations, but rather gestures beyond itself, pointing toward that which cannot be said yet must be encountered.

4. The epistemological problem that the apophatic approach seeks to address does not —as we have already noted— arise from an infinite ontological distance between divine and human essence, as Western apophaticism tends to assume. Rather, it stems from the inherently imperfect nature of the human experience of relationship —with God or with Creation— and, above all, from the open and dynamic character of these relationships. To confine them within what we have already grasped mentally would be a serious mistake — namely, a form of idolatry. For ‘we know in part,’ as the Apostle Paul reminds us, and what we now see is ‘only a reflection as in a mirror’ (1 Cor. 13:9–11). Thus, any conceptual articulation is nothing more than a shared reflection upon this partial —yet open and dynamic— experience: a reflection on those aspects of it that can be communally communicated. This kind of knowledge is not reducible to the operations of mental or emotional perception alone. It arises through shared participation, circumincession (perichoresis), and communion with God and Creation. And in turn, it contributes to the most complete possible participation, perichoresis, and communion of the human being with both God and Creation — keeping open the horizon of transformation, both of the self and of the world as a whole.

But shared participation, circumincession (perichoresis), and communion presuppose synergy. This is why the distinction between essence and energies —fundamental to Orthodox theology— becomes crucial. Not only the distinction between the divine essence and the uncreated divine energies (which was at the heart of the Hesychast controversy and the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas in the 14th century), but the distinction between essence and energies in general, whether we are referring to God or to Creation. Of course, the kind of experience and knowledge that human beings can attain in relation to God differs from that which they may attain in relation to Creation. Yet in both cases, knowledge is grounded in the energetic correlation between the parties involved. In fact, there is no knowledge of the essence of anything — not of God, certainly, but neither of Creation, nor even of the human being. We tend to assume that one can possess knowledge of one’s own essence, but this is only true insofar as that essence is made manifest through its energies. Thus, strictly speaking, knowledge is not the result of contact with essence as such, but with essential energies. All the more so in the case of the knowledge of God: the intrinsic non-communion between human and divine essence does not preclude communion between the human being and God, precisely because of the communicability of the divine energies. Human beings relate to the divine energies either indirectly —by discerning the effects of God’s presence within Creation— or directly, through the empirical vision and contemplation (theoria) of the uncreated divine energies, which are in any case the creative foundation of Creation itself. This partial and imperfect association is what grounds both affirmative and negative theological language about God — language which, in turn (let me emphasize once more), serves to empower and deepen that very relationship.[8] [8]

As a matter of shared participation, circumincession (perichoresis), and communion, the issue is no longer strictly epistemological. It becomes part of the broader question of human transformation in Christ. In this light, apophaticism is not merely the core of Orthodox epistemology, but of the Orthodox way of life as a whole. It becomes a way of fulfilling the Second Commandment: the refusal to treat concepts as idols — the rejection of conceptual idolatry in favor of a lived, empirical openness to the True Life.

NOTES

[1] Given the elementary character of this presentation of Western apophaticism, I have considered it unnecessary to include specific bibliographical references. Anyone interested can easily consult standard encyclopedic entries under terms such as ‘apophatic theology’, ‘cataphatic theology’, or via triplex, along with the further bibliographic resources provided therein.

[2] Typical representatives of this mystical form of apophaticism include John Scotus Eriugena (9th century), Meister Eckhart (13th–14th century), and St. John of the Cross (16th century).

[3] Christos Yannaras, On the Absence and Unknowability of God, trans. Haralambos Ventis, 2nd ed. (T&T Clark, 2007), 60; first published 2005. By the same author: Elements of Faith: An Introduction to Orthodox Theology, trans. Keith Schram, new ed. (T&T Clark, 2006), 17; first published 1991.

[4] Nowadays, some Western theologians acknowledge that apophaticism applies not only to the knowledge of God, but also to the knowledge of Creation. For example, Frederick D. Wilhelmsen writes: “There is no reason to restrict the Triplex Via to man’s knowledge of God. The doctrine applies as well to our knowledge of being as being.” (Being and Knowing: Reflections of a Thomist, Transaction Publishers, 2016 [originally published by Preserving Christian Publications, 1991]). Being and Knowing. Reflections of a Thomist , Transaction Publishers 2016, first published: Preserving Christian Publications 1991).

[5] John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book I, Chapter 2, first paragraph.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Περισσότερα γιὰ τὴν εἰκονολογικὴ θεώρηση τῆς ψυχῆς βλ. στὸ: Βασίλης Ξυδιᾶς, «Ἡ ψυχὴ στὸν Χριστιανισμό. Ἀνάμεσα στὸν Θάνατο καὶ τὴν Ἀνάσταση: Σπουδὴ στὴ νεκρώσιμη ἀκολουθία», στὸ Antifono, 2009 (Μαρ. 27). Καὶ προηγούμενη ἔκδοση τοῦ ἰδίου κειμένου: «Εἰς Ψυχὴν Ζῶσαν: ἡ ἑνότητα ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος στὸ Χριστιανισμό», στὸν συλλογικὸ τόμο: Τί εἶναι ἡ ψυχή; μὲ ἐπιμέλεια-εἰσαγωγὴ τῆς Εὔας Αὐλίδου, 62-88 (ἐκδ. Ἀρχέτυπο, 2002).

[8] As St. Gregory Palamas (14th century) definitively clarified, God is unknowable in His essence, yet He can be known—not merely through the created effects of His actions, but God Himself—through His uncreated (aktistai) energies. Several centuries earlier, St. John of Damascus (7th–8th century) had already stated that even our affirmative statements about God do not describe His nature itself, but rather what is “around,” “surrounding,” or “related to” His nature. “And if you should ever speak of goodness, or justice, or wisdom, or anything of the sort, you will not be describing the nature of God, but only things relating to His nature.” (John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book I, Chapter 4, final paragraph.) Note: Some English translations render this final phrase as ‘the qualities of His nature.’ In my view, this translation is inaccurate, as it overlooks the apophatic nuance of the original expression and thereby shifts its meaning into a cataphatic register.

Creative Commons License

Επιτρέπεται η αναδημοσίευση για μη εμπορικούς σκοπούς με προϋπόθεση την αναφορά της πηγής και τη μη αλλοίωση με οποιονδήποτε τρόπο του περιεχομένου. © Vassilisl Xidias