Page 181 [181]
MYSTICISM AND RATIONALITY. A NEOPLATONIC PERSPECTIVE
3. THE QUESTION OF SCEPTICISM REVISITED
We have seen earlier that the late Neoplatonists recognized different
theological approaches to divine truth. Damascius often points out that the
different theologies provide different answers to a question. The point is not
that they are to be disbelieved, but rather that philosophical inquiry and
argument must be the judge, not so much in order to decide who is right, but
to discern that they are all expressions of a truth that lies beyond their reach.
This truth, Damascius says, is known only to the gods:
Someone could adduce evidence for either hypothesis from the theologies: from the
Chaldaean and Orphic he could maintain the second thesis, but from the Egyptian
and from the Phoenician the first. The gods alone would know the truth. But let this
point be the end of our deliberation concerning these matters. Perhaps we shall
make some investigation again concerning them.®
This echoes a point that was made by Plato himself, namely that our human
knowledge is not sufficient to understand all reality. In the Parmenides, one
of the self-criticisms of Plato’s theory of ideas has it that we cannot know the
true nature of the ideas, as that would require a divine viewpoint.’ And in his
many references to the traditional gods, Plato always leaves open the question
of their nature, as we cannot know such things." That does not prevent Plato,
however, from scrutinizing the gods’ nature or the ideas. It is more like
a caveat that indicates that there will always be more to it than what our
human capacities can achieve.
Also, in the case of Damascius, this caveat does not mean that rational
discourse, or philosophy, has no role to play. Reason remains a true guide
to the contemplation of truth. This may become clear, for instance, from
Damascius’ discussion of the principles of limit and the unlimited (mépac
and dmetpov), which stem from Plato’s Philebus, but which have an equivalent
in different theological traditions: the Orphics talk about aether and Chaos
that come after Chronos, the Chaldaean Oracles want there to be a dyad of
father and power after the one god, etc.!' According to Damascius, these
terminologies are interchangeable:
Damascius, DP II 212, 13-19:”Exoı 6’ Av Tıg EKatepqa dnoBéoEL papropia Erayayeiv amo TOV
BeoAoyı®v, and uEv TÄS XaAdaikfig TE Kal Hppırfis Peßaıwv tv devrepav, And dE TS alyurrtiag
kal Tig Potvikwv tiv mpotépay. Td pév obv AAndEG adroi Av eiôetev oi Beoi- nuiv OÈ LÉXpt TODÔE
Sinnopnodw nepi TOdTwWv- Täxa yap Av Kal addıs adrwv noımoönedd Tiva Ernotv.
9° Plato, Parm. 134 b-e.
10 See, e.g., Plato, Tim. 40 d-e; Phaedrus 246 e.
Cf. Damascius, DP II 24, 1-24: “Let us now say something about this subject, opposition.
Should we then, as virtually all philosophers and even more theologians, hold that the dyad
should be placed after the celebrated first principle, also place the dyad here, speaking now
+ 179 +
Daréczi-Sepsi-Vassänyi_Initiation_155x240.indb 179 6 2020.06.15. 11:04:19