Gods, Goddesses, Deities, and the One

7 June 2023

Gods, Goddesses, Deities, and the One

I find a lot of ambiguity in the Platonist tradition regarding the usage of the terms used to discuss trans-sensory realities such as deities, gods, and goddesses.  The ambiguity is partly due to the cultural context of the Classical world.  In the tales and myths told about deities their behavior frequently involves promiscuity, plotting revenge, cannibalism, plotting wars, backstabbing, etc.  Because of this ethically questionable behavior, in popular culture, such as plays and poems, deities were often thought of as heartless manipulators of human beings.  In the Platonic tradition these same deities become symbols of transcendental realities and are thought of as highly elevated unities who would never engage in such behavior.  The difference in the way the same deities are depicted in popular culture and Platonic writing is so great that it makes me wonder if, in fact, they are even talking about the same realities.  Here are a few tentative thoughts about this:

1.  My general feeling is that the two depictions of gods and goddesses (the one found in popular Classical culture and the one found in Platonist writing, particularly the post-Proclean writings) are irreconcilable.  My intuition is that the reason they diverge so dramatically is that they are, in fact, talking about two different realities.

2.  I see the popular conception of gods and goddesses as essentially accurate.  I see the Platonic reconfiguration of the gods and goddesses as an attempt to generate a cataphatic Platonism; that is to say something similar to the ‘Divine Names’ literature, such as The Divine Names of Dionysius the Areopagite, and other similar works. 

3.  I’m not rejecting the existence of deities as depicted in popular culture, nor am I rejecting deities as depicted in Platonic writings such as those of Proclus.  I think both are actual existing realities, but they are different realities and the use of the same names to designate these realities has, I think, caused confusion.  It’s as if candles and stars had the same name; if that were the case, we would all have to make an effort to distinguish between the two. 

4.  Part of the confusion is that Proclus, and later Platonists who follow his lead on this topic, place deities between the One and Nous, between the One and Being, Life, and Intellect.  This means that deities, with their individual names, appearances, functions, etc., are closer to the One than, for example, Being found in Nous.  But deities are more differentiated than Nous is and, as I understand it, the more differentiated something is, the farther that something is from the One.  For this reason, and others, placing deities above Being, Life, and Intellect, does not make sense to me.

5.  However, it does make sense to talk about the One using the analogy of transcendental personalities, that is to say, deities.  This is what I mean by ‘cataphatic.’ 

6.  The One has no name and no form; but because we are human beings trapped in materiality, it is necessary to find a way to talk about the One using words that are efficacious and attractive.  Platonism developed terms like the One (the most widely used term), and the Good.  At times Platonists will also use the Beautiful (the Beautiful which is above the Beautiful found in nous), now and then the term the ‘Eternal’ will be offered, and at other times Platonists will use the term God in the singular. 

This in itself is cataphatic; meaning these names, or terms, are positive statements rather than negations.  The use of idealized deities is another means of talking about that which ultimately has no name or form.  These personifications, which are more concrete than terms like the One, or the Good, or the Eternal, or even the Beautiful, offer a fuller vocabulary with which Platonic practitioners can talk among themselves about their experiences and understandings of the goal of the Platonic quest.  These names, drawn from the pantheon of Classical deities, in this context become symbols of the transcendental; they are limited expressions of that which is unlimited.  They are facets of eternity.

7.  I’m suggesting that the deities’ names are tools that limited human beings can use to assist them on their journey to the One.  These Divine Names are like the equipment a hiker takes with him; they are like backpackers' hiking shoes, rope, protein bars, etc. 

At the same time, I refrain from thinking of these deities as somehow placed between the One and Nous.  My feeling is that such a placement turns the One into a specific metaphysical region, which would mean that the One has a form, a kind of separate metaphysical region.  My understanding of the One differs; I understand the One as permeating everywhere, and at the same time an ultimate otherness found in everything, transcending time and for this reason the One is everywhen.  The One is, therefore, accessible to living beings because of its permeating presence.

8.  The apophatic approach is emphasized in Platonism, particularly in the writings of Plotinus who writes at one point ‘take away everything.’  That is because the One is fully transcendental and, as said above, an ultimate otherness.  Even the name ‘the One’ is provisional; such a name is useful in helping us on our journey, but the One is not the One. 

In a similar way, the gods and goddesses, as depicted in their purity in Platonic sources, can inspire practitioners to higher realities by personifying higher realities found on the journey to that which is ultimate.  These personifications act as signposts and, at the same time, reminders of what the journey is about.

9.  But what about the deities of popular culture?  My view here is that they are all part of the third hypostasis, part of genesis.  These deities, from angels and archangels to heroes and daemons and nature spirits and even higher deities, are impermanent.  They will pass away just like human beings do, and they will be reborn in accordance with their deeds, just like we will be.  If they enter into purification and contemplation, if they practice philosophy, they will be reborn in auspicious conditions such that in that future rebirth they may have the opportunity to return to the One.

10.  I see the apophatic and the cataphatic as like the steps we take with our two feet; first the left foot, then the right foot, as we move forward on the path that leads to the one.

11.  This has been a contentious issue within Platonism for a long time.  Yet I think it is possible to come to a kind of ‘middle’ position wherein value is found in both perspectives as well as limitations.

12.  As I mentioned at the start, these are tentative thoughts; as the reader can see, they are not very systematic or polished.  But perhaps they will be received as a modest contribution and of some value.