Love as Descent: Comparing the Models of Proclus and Dionysius through Eriugena

This paper explores the models of the providential-erotic descent in Neoplatonism and Christianity and the ethical consequences that these two models entail. Neoplatonic representative is an excerpt from Proclus’ Commentary on the First Alcibiades, where a parallel with ancient Greek mythology is dr...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Religions
Main Author: Vasilakis, Dimitrios A. 1986- (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: MDPI 2021
In: Religions
Year: 2021, Volume: 12, Issue: 9
Further subjects:B Incarnation
B Jesus Christ
B ataraxia
B Eriugena
B Eros
B Proclus
B descent
B Hierarchy
B Resurrection
B Socrates
B Love
B Mania
B Dionysius
Online Access: Presumably Free Access
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Description
Summary:This paper explores the models of the providential-erotic descent in Neoplatonism and Christianity and the ethical consequences that these two models entail. Neoplatonic representative is an excerpt from Proclus’ Commentary on the First Alcibiades, where a parallel with ancient Greek mythology is drawn: Socrates’ providential love for Alcibiades is compared to Hercules’ descent to Hades in order to save Theseus. This image recalls not only the return of the illumined philosopher back to the Cave (from Plato’s Republic) but also the Byzantine hagiographical depiction of Jesus Christ’s Resurrection qua Descent to Hades. The end of Dionysius’ 8th Epistle (the Christian counterpart to Proclus) recalls this Byzantine icon and forms a narration framed as a vision that a pious man had. There are crucial features differentiating Proclus from Dionysius, and Eriugena’s poetry (paschal in tone) helps in order to understand their ontological background and the eschatology they imply, as well as explain why Christ’s “philanthropy” (love for mankind) is more radical than that of Proclus’ Socrates.
ISSN:2077-1444
Contains:Enthalten in: Religions
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.3390/rel12090726