Abstract
This essay considers the paradox raised by Eckhart’s exegesis of the verse Ex. 15:3, in the commentary on the book of Exodus, with regard to the objection formulated by the Dionysian thesis, in the Celestial Hierarchy, chapter 2, § 3, according to which any statement about God is incompact, whereas Meister Eckhart maintains that it is proper. Meister Eckhart limits the scope of the Dionysian ...
Abstract
This essay considers the paradox raised by Eckhart’s exegesis of the verse Ex. 15:3, in the commentary on the book of Exodus, with regard to the objection formulated by the Dionysian thesis, in the Celestial Hierarchy, chapter 2, § 3, according to which any statement about God is incompact, whereas Meister Eckhart maintains that it is proper. Meister Eckhart limits the scope of the Dionysian objection to the mode of signifying according to inherence and reverses the incompactness of statements about God into compactness, as long as they are taken according to the mode of signifying according to essential identity.
More literature (via CORE)