5 Comments

That was quite a bowl of wine!

Expand full comment

Your remark: "for all Dionysius’ reliance on Platonic tradition, this is where he explicitly turns from it. In DN IV.12, he denies any distinction between erōs and agapē. St John might just as well have said God is erōs. The terms are interchangeable. He admits, in CH 2.4, of the Platonic definition of erōs, as the hunger of the wise for the Good. But to him, the Good, or God, is not only the object of that hunger, but its source. It is two-way: it governs both pronoia and epistrophe. It moves not only the subordinate to “return” to the superior, but also the superior to “providence” for the subordinate. As such, Eros is the catalyst for unity, which Dionysius here names in a way resonant with both Platonic and Christian tradition: koinōnia, Communion."

reminds me of CS Lewis 'Four Loves', where one expects him to say that agapee is the 'correct' kind of Xtn love, replacing the other three which he considers. But (if my memory serves) Lewis says that Xtn agapee embodies & transfigures the other three, which include eros.

Expand full comment

Very interesting and erudite. Bravo.

Expand full comment