Two Negatives is Positive

By: Jonathan Seidel

Postmodern negative theology

Despite the recent rise in positive theology and textual scholarship, there are a few holding onto medieval constructs of negative theology. This is not an inability to let go of the past but a convicted belief in its value.

Kenneth Seeskin happens to be the most prominent philosophical defender I’ve come across. His acceptance of negative theology in a postmodern world is equally intriguing. Seeskin’s analysis in light of Maimonides Descartes and Kant. He concludes with a contemporary effect. He sides with the Kantian ethic of divine knowledge. Seeskin observes divine actions as the measure of proper behaviour. He affirms Maimonides and Kant as speaking in the same tone. In a recent volume, Seeskin demonstrated the fallibility of experiencing divinity. Negative theology reveres God and approaches him differently than immanent command. Seeskin marks the three of the most important thinkers who marked revolutionary models. Aristotle the father of metaphysics and rationalism, Descartes the father of classical rationalism and Immanuel Kant the father of modern ethics These thinkers played a critical role in the relation of God but yet the simultaneous isolation of him. To what form predicts is the end of God. These thinkers tied negative theology with their own recognition of intellectual limits of man. 

Seeskin's work is linked to recent scholarship mainly of Leibowitz and Levinas. Both of whom in their own minds promoted a negative theology. Though they did so in their own right and promoted axiology and ethics. The latter more than the former sees God as the moral agent to follow. The alienation of an immanent God has been the thrust of medieval philosophy. God is the symbol of religious affiliation.

Kierkegaard’s existentialism brought negative theology to a whole new light. His leap of faith fuels into an inability to describe him. Existentialism sought to harmonise the individual’s journey with God. Though not all existential thinkers prompted this idea. Rosenzweig and Buber did not follow through and spoke positively. Buber’s critique of Heidegger lies in the latter’s deistic creation. Though Kierkegaard intended for a negative capacity, it is the leap to faith and to his positivity that encourages the existentialists. Levinas’ phenomenology pushes God to the symbolic while the mystics in a way to the same.

Driving past Levinas, the current thinkers try to revive the textual old barrier. God was sophisticated and relatable. Textual language speaks of God so why not us. Religious literature is replete with anthropomorphic gestures and those are used to navigate his theology. Modern thinkers in Rosenzweig and Berkovits were positive about God but maintained a limited capacity nonetheless. There is more room than Maimonides but not too much. The wrongful assumption by those pro-God talk is twofold one is the limitation component of making ontological claims about an infinite being with finite abilities. Secondly, it forgets the most important part. Berkovits actually makes this startling point that revelation is relationship not existence. To not overanalyse divine acts and more see their worth than their metaphysical possibility. Negative theology isn’t nothingness, its a placeholder, a foundation to discuss other critical aspects.

Similar to Leibowitz's anti-historicism for axiological commitments, so too ethics over theology. Theology is still important but instead of deliberating the godhead we focus instead on god’s education. Don’t ask the teacher about his personal life ask him about his teachings. There is a curiosity and yearned intimacy but boundaries as well as limits are inevitable. God himself is less to be pondered and more his will, despite the undying curiosity for the former. God is to be respected and his will is to be obeyed. The ethical turn is sometimes even more honest. You learn about people from their actions not their origin. Divine ontology is unnecessary with a mission at hand. That mission cannot be lost. Ethical manifestation proposes a deeper emphasis. It is not that we say nothing of God but that we are careful about it. 

Beyond these existential thinkers that even Soloveitchik’s orthodoxy finds theological mitigation. Herman Cohen is the thinker who best expresses the theory straight from Kant and in a rationalist hold before the existential bind of the twentieth century. Cohen prioritised reason in coordinating a contemporary theology. He uses traditional lingo to specify a humanised deity yet emphasis the moral character as the necessary variable like a good Kantian. Cohen paints a dual picture of using the lingo but restricting God. It is on man to make the trek from God’s education. 

Negative theology’s acceptance of finitiude places metaphysics in the realm of possibility. Lewis’ scholarship only fuels the fire. Cohen’s rule is indicative of a recent book on Gersonides about religion within the limits of reason. The maimonidean ideal is to utilise the intellect as much as possible. Man is on his own but possesses special knowledge to help him grow. The parent God has let go of man his child and it up to the child to mature and walk on his own. The guidelines are there but it his responsibility to actualise it. 

There is a sad relic in man’s inability to face the divine but that knowledge is incurable. Even the analogy is depressing that the child is gifted but can never turn back to see the parent’s joy or hug him. The transcendence is difficult but it enables man to actualise his greatest self. Freedom is the core of his will to heed. God is a supreme being, the greatest of the great that cannot be described but yet can still be connected. Campbell's hero's journey compels the protagonist to leave home to fulfil his mission. Life is a goal and moving on is terribly difficult maybe even tragic but inevitable and necessary. Technology enables us to call home even if it's never the same. 

Negative theology humbles man in the face of the infinite. Man is succumbed by his ability to conquer all. Heschian radial amazement, wonder sublime awe are penciled in the negation of God. If he is truly beyond though there is no measure. It is that transcendence that is awe-filled. The sparkle of wonder bejewels the mystery in man’s soul. To understanding perfection is to be perfect to which man is and cannot be. His own limitations cut a deep disconnect with man. A disappointing clash that a child embarrassed to turn around and embrace his parent. It is through copying that which he can understand. Monkey see, monkey do. A feeling of elevation spreads upon completing a task from the infinite. 

Seeskin’s three examples were all rationalists. All who prioritised the intellect. Man’s rationalism must contest the negation. The absolute can only be connected through the intellect. Divine attributes are the backbone and the rest is through metaphysical speculation. This leads to transcendence and man’s initiative. Man is to discover more of the world and thus God becomes less of an immanent force. It's not just cyclical, it's a multi-varied equation. Man’s independence and intellectual configuration is the proposal for negative theology. Negative theology refocuses man’s centricity as dignified in his pursuit of the ideal. 

Negative theology enables the traditional model to be upheld all the while untraditionally discussing it. Negative theology at first glance seems contradictory to antiquity literature. There are two ways of looking at this picture: God, prophets and ordained sages had a special link to discuss the divine image. In line with yeridas hadorot no one after has the capacity to describe God in such a manner. Traditional hierarchies maintain a selective ancient elite were able but not their successors. They had access to which we do not have. The other side is the symbolism that it portrays. The acceptance by most of Jewry of the metaphorical anthropomorphism extends from complexion to emotions. It was never intentioned as literal descriptions but to convey a specific lesson. Human attributes ease our understanding but it is absurd to think of God in such terms, it belittles him and undermines him. 

To take this second point further, is to establish a mythos that cares more for consequences than being. Ontology is not a major factor of Judaism and isn’t supposed to be. God’s existence is an ethos insofar as he leads and educates the people. There is no queries beyond. God’s thoughts are almost all marred or conveyed with purpose. The moment of divine regret in Genesis is educational more than ontological. It is important for the subsequent scene of the flood and Noah’s redemption. The mythos is a beautiful storyline that places God as the enduring teacher who completes the circle with man’s elevation. Man’s struggles are overcome with divine aid. The symbolism regards the transcendence as a necessary correspondence for man’s humility and ever gratitude. 

Positive theology runs the error of applying divine attributes to force-feed a God based on the literature presented. Based on the recent analysis, such description conveys assumptions. The traditional acceptance of anti-anthropomorphism contradicts the mystical and positive theology. It is considerably difficult to apply attributes to a deity who does not possess them. If the tradition decries attributing to God, attributing to him is either heresy on legal grounds and/or heresy on theological grounds. The arrogance to usurp an almost unanimous position is exceedingly problematic. Even if noble willed, does not change reality. For scholars angry with medieval scholarship, their modern voices mean nothing. They are quarrelling with an oral tradition and semantic phraseology. The text provides anthropomorphisms so this must be what they meant. According to what metric is that? If anything, rabbinic theology presents accounts where the semantic law is ideal as the narrative humbles it to realistic ramifications. 

The wish to retain a link to God in a postmodern world, to reapply purpose to the almost relinquished deity is formidable but clashes with tradition. Ironically, it is Leibowitz and Levinas who though present anti-historical rhetoric further the medieval model into educational prose. It is more iconic to flow the tradition to ad absurdum. Value and ethics are God’s telos. This is his gift to man. His presence is irrelevant insofar as he is not building his relationship with man or educating him to live. This sounds like God is a tool but it actually makes God accountable. How blasphemous! God is not some unconcerned greek god who is worshipped either for his future aid or a royal christian god for his lordship. There is a pact to which God and man are related in their missions. God needs man less than man needs him but there is a mutuality that harbours persistent commitment. God’s fury and man’s nihilism emerge from bruised expectations. There is a critical expressive element to rely on one another. It is what is done not who they are.         

Negative theology though fits the  contemporary philosophical picture and has been utilised by scholars to reduce the divine image, it is complacent as an enduring message to the masses. God’s actions speak louder than his personality. The unknown background is to remain as is, it is his actions that are represented. It is the relationship, the education and the greatest gift. God is to be spoken of in prestige not in hypothesised schemes. Man’s elevation is not at the expense of God but in his delight as a respectable partner.