[Ide írhat] [Ide írhat] [Ide írhat]

De Theologiæ Græcorum
The Theology of the Greeks
[Ide írhat] [Ide írhat] [Ide írhat]

Tartalomjegyzék
Prologue ............................................................................................................................... 1
On act and potency, also on existence and essence Also a critique of some pre-
Socratics, Parmenides and Heraclitus ............................................................................... 2
The Monad, God the Good and the One....................................................................... 3
[Ide írhat] [Ide írhat] [Ide írhat]

De Theologiæ Græcorum
Prologue
In this collection of writings I intend to show how the Philosophy of the Greeks,
namely of Plato, Plotinus and of Iamblichus and various others of this sort, are
not only appealing and interesting, but rather Oracles of Divine Wisdom and the
holders of Eternal Truths given by God trough illuminating the intellects of
these men and making them, trough their actions of their own free will Gentile
prophets. The Greeks were a truly favoured nation of God, since the amount of
beauty and wisdom that was handed down to them is clearly unachievable
without the benevolence of God and His various emanations. Among the Greeks
there are philosophers who are, according to my opinion very much deluded,
namely the materialists and sophists, who are technically the same, although the
latter ones are more known of their scepticism taken to insane hights. The
previous ones are more known of their rejection of the Immortality of the Soul,
and consequently of the afterlife. The most known of these men are the
Epicureans and Atomists. The previous founded by Epicurus the latter
Democritus. They both believed in two things, although we should not consider
them Dualists. These two are empty space and atoms. But let us now ignore
such people, who came up with such idiotistic nonsense. Let us be illuminated
by the holy Oracles of the Platonists. Which I very much admire and love. In
this oration I hope I will be able to describe accurately and rationally the
Philosophy of the Platonists, primarily of Plotinus and of Iamblichus, also the
wise Ficino, we also will touch on certain thoughts of the wise Avicenna too. At
last we shall know were we begin. Our divine Philosopher, Plato, wants to settle
once and for all what the philosophers, Parmenides and Heraclitus argued.
Namely, the problem of change. The Philosopher with his theory, which he will
come up with, will answer this question as nobody before him could. That is
why we shall thank the Lord, that He gave us such a brilliant genius like Plato.
Let us begin!
[Ide írhat] [Ide írhat] [Ide írhat]

On act and potency, also on existence and essence

Also a critique of some pre-Socratics, Parmenides and Heraclitus

I.
In this I will discuss, the most fundamental characteristics of existence or being.
Namely act and potency, which are in a way closely related to essence and
existence. These terms are not directly found in the works and dialogues of the
Philosopher, these were first explained and demonstrated by his fellow student
Aristotle, also it was expanded upon by the later Platonists like Plotinus and
accepted by the ones after Plotinus like Iamblichus.
But what are these? That, I will demonstrate. First, we will have to refute both
Parmenides and Heraclitus, since if it was true what they said, what I try to
demonstrate, would be technically useless and more importantly false.
Parmenides held that existence or being, is the only thing that is. Which I would
gladly agree with. There truly is one existence. However what he meant was
different than what I would mean by that. He proposed this being, is not
participated, meaning that not only, there is not multiple beings, but also that
there are no entities which in themselves do not, but by way of participating in
being, having themselves non. He denies there would be such entities. On that
he is wrong. He most importantly, besides that, deny change. This is
problematic for several reasons. To begin with, it is clear to the senses that
world changes. An acorn into a tree, Parmenides into an old man, and so on and
so forth. Parmenides dismisses this a trick or illusion of the senses. The reason
is that he conceives of change as a coming from nothing, which indeed, is
impossible. But we should not be committed to such view, since it is false.
Change never is said to be a coming from non being, this is just nonsense, made
up by him. Change is kind being, transforming into another type of being. Even
if our senses would trick us, we would have to distinguish between, the false
illusion which is provided by the senses and the true motionless reality. Since if
the two would be the same, either there really would be change, or if this reality
is the same as the motionless reality, why is it in motion? But if distinguish the
two, we actually deduce simply, that there is a world of change, on level of
senses and a changeless above it, which actually is the conclusion of the
Philosopher. So the position of Parmenides is contradictory and absurd, thus we
ought to reject it. Let us see, the other extreme of Heraclitus now.
[Ide írhat] [Ide írhat] [Ide írhat]

Thus, now we should discuss Heraclitus. Heraclitus held a view, most utterly
opposite to Parmenides. ‘Man cannot step in the same river twice, for it is not
the same river and he is not the same man’. In this we see a succinct summary
of his views. Nothing is constant, all is in flux. The only constant is change.
What is then, which organizes the world? If Heraclitus were honest, his answer
would be nothing, but he is not, since it is most obvious he is wrong on that
matter. He recognizes, something permanent must exist in order for the world to
be such as it is. He calls this rational organizing principle the ‘Logos’, reason,
which keeps the flux in order. Again we see that Heraclitus actually does argue
for an organizing permanent principle, since it is so obvious, however he stills
holds to his irrational views. Now, since we looked over in short over his views
and beliefs, let us reason for his unreasonableness. First it is obvious that,
change is real, (contra Parmenides) this, Heraclitus would agree with, however,
I argue for change there has to be something constant, namely substance, since
if there were nothing constant, nothing would actually change, since there
would be nothing. We could not point to any thing, since there would be no
things, since there would be no constant which is a thing itself. If I would
always change there would be no me. Because what I would call me never
actually is, there is nothing, what is me. What ‘I’ am today is not the same
according to Heraclitus who I was tomorrow, which is absurd. I clearly am who
I was, I am the same person, the accidents of me, my hair, my clothes are not
the same, but my substance is the same. Like a river, the river is the same river
simply the water changes, sometimes it curves, or dries out but the river is the
same in substance, there are not many rivers in this case, simply one, which
exists in different ways. Heraclitus himself is himself, he is not any others, he
does change, but fundamentally he remained the same. If Heraclitus did not
remain the same there would be nothing to refer to. Again, an ever changing
world is absolutely impossible since actuality is not found in anything, nothing
is permanent, if a thing would be itself for a blink of an eye, than not everything
would be ever changing. If a ball would be red, and it would not cease to be red
for any period of time, then the balls redness would be permanent, for a time
and Heraclitus’ theory would miserably fail. Also to call anything, anything, it
must be anything, not something other, but itself, This means it has to
essentially remain itself even though it may change ‘per accident’. Things thus
have to posses real actuality (even though only participated actuality in the
One), since only than can things exist, if all are in change and there is only flux
and no actuality, we have no beings, ironically no change and no reality.
[Ide írhat] [Ide írhat] [Ide írhat]

So, we see how I arrived at the necessary and rational conclusion that, nor is
everything in motion nor that all are constant. The beloved Aristotle,
second to Plato, discovered this, he was truly a genius, although arguably
he simply continued the lineage of thought starting with his master, since
we see traces of Plato rejecting aspects of both Heraclitus and
Parmenides. The Philosopher proposes his solution with the Forms,
which serve as a reconciliation between the everchanging Kosmos and
the Immutable world of Intellect. Back to Aristotle, he posits two things
in response to Parmenides, namely the principles of act and potency. Act
meaning the actual existence of a certain perfection, for example the
whiteness of Marble, and potency the potential existence of the marble as
transformed into a sculpture. Nor act nor potency is nothing according to
him, both are existence in two different modes, this has to be true, since
from nothing comes nothing, and if whenever there was nothing, there
would never be anything. We observe thus, that all things can be
categorized into three groups. Prime matter, pure potency with no
actuality; mixed beings with both act and potency and Actus Purus, in
which there is no potency, or possibility of change. As proof for act and
potency should serve the previous two pages, but here I provide
additional proofs, on this matter. The first proof is the reliability of the
senses, and from that the deduction of truths about reality according to
sense experience. The senses must be reliable, since they can only
perceive something which exists, meaning they cannot perceive non-
existence, so anything they perceive, must be a real and genuine picture
of a certain state of affairs external to the self. For the dear Solipsists I,
want to hand out a poetic question, ‘Do you my friend think when you
burn thyself, is the heat which burnt you inside you, is it part of you? If
so, how does it affect you, if it exits within you and is a product of you,
you should be able to control such thing. I may ask, if I came and burnt
you with a stick of iron, why don’t by the power of your own all-
encompassing intellect stop it?’ Thus Solipsism is refuted, it is irrational.
Thus even though our senses can deceive us, they simply are misleading
on a certain level of reality. When one sees a Mirage the eyes tell the
intellect there is an Oasis there, the Mirage exists, its really there, it
simply is not an Oasis. So to summarize, the senses always perceive
reality as it is, simply the intellect sometimes mistakes certain things
perceived by the senses as some others.
[Ide írhat] [Ide írhat] [Ide írhat]

Moving on, we see how it is obvious that not only our mind is not the only
thing, change is real and permanence is real, now we can show that how act and
potency work. Although I already mentioned them, I still desire to expand upon
it. As said potentially is how a thing could be, actuality is how it actually
already is. We also divided nature into three categories. Now we shall mention,
how act, actualizes and annihilates potency, and how actuality is primary and
potency in itself is incapable of anything. So, as apparent we see in the world
that some things change, potency is the thing they annihilate when changing,
and actuality annihilates it, when the actual marble is hit with a actual hammer,
the potentially fractured marble actually becomes fractured. We see only actual
things can annihilate potency. As proof, if we would have a hammer which
could potentially exists but actually does not, we could not do anything with the
marble, simply its static actuality would remain. Thus as said actual existence is
primary. This actually is a proof for God, provided by Aristotle. Since act and
potency are those which constitute change, we can simply say for change only
these are needed, nothing less or more. Thus since an infinite series of per
se(essential causes) are impossible and also we know that if potency were the
first principle, it would be impossible that for any actual existence to come to
be. It is also known that there is actual existence, so this can be dismissed. Also
potency always rests in actuality, even prime matter exists not independently but
inside the Divine Soul1, the Divine Soul simply since eternal has infinite
potency to create, it exists in her, the infinite potential, not outside him, as God
emanates the Intellect by nothing other than his absolutely infinite potential, so
does the Intellect the gods 2, and the gods the Divine Soul. The Divine Soul
emanates particular souls and the world trough the infinite potential in her. So,
as concluded potentiality rests in actuality, but actuality in no way in potency.
The first principle thus must be purely actual, since if it there would be potential
in Him, He would be constituted of parts, since there would be some actuality
He does not posses, thus making him fractured and divided. Thus the first
principle who is purely simply is purely simply also, superseding even being
itself. This has various implications, namely the Divine Attributes, which are
not to be understood as separate Attributes composing and thus fracturing God,
but rather analogical understandings of God as One. Now we end our
introduction to the ‘Philosophia Græcorum’3, and now we will go on in a

1
Divine Soul, here it refers to the Psyche the Second Hypostasis, in the Neoplatonic hierarchy, also known as anima mundi.
2
The gods, here mean henads, the, Neoplatonic conception of the second, or sometimes first emanation from the One, here
they are regarded as the second emanation, since philosophically I hold to that.
3
Philosophia Græcorum, the Latin for Greek philosophy
[Ide írhat] [Ide írhat] [Ide írhat]

descending manner in proving and explaining and also expanding upon

Neoplatonic theology and philosophy, with its implications and conclusions
according to me.

The Monad, God the Good and the One

II.
Now we shall contemplate on God, the First Principle, nor First nor Last, nor
Good, nor Evil, nor personal nor impersonal, nor actuality nor potentiality
nor Trinity nor Unity, nor anything nor nothing, nor non- being nor being.
If we want to be humble and wise we would say nothing about God. But
how will proceed then? How will we come to know anything about God?
Trough His energies, under this I do not mean Palamite4 Energies5, indeed
God is in no way divided into essence and energy, this is preposterous. I
will know start from what we know about the Monad, I may provide
further proofs of it, but for now I will not do that. We will start at the
Plotinian One. The One of Plotinus is, well One, in the One there is no
separation, division, differentiation by way of parthood nor any kind of
multiplicity which implies composition. It must also be beyond all genus,
categories, species, universals, Forms and even being. Being means
participated existence, God or the One is beyond any participation, since
participation always implies a more fundamental thing or entity in which
its existence relies upon. But for God this is just impossible, for various
reasons, as said above it is impossible since the problem of dependence,
and second, because of the problem of composition. Thus we firmly
established the transcendence of the First Principle, and proved why even
the term ‘First Being’ or ‘First Existent’ does not apply to God. Now we
can move on, unironically to talk about God, which in principle is
impossible, but analogy will be our guide. Now moving on from that God
is One, follows a more proper name, ‘not many’, this tells us God is
united essentially in His very ‘Being’, there are no parts in Him. But we
already know this. Let us see Him from the perspective of being Pure

4
Gregory Palamas, a 13th century Byzantine Greek and eastern Orthodox monk and theologian
5
Energies here refer to a theological concept of Palamas, namely in relation to the Essence-Energies
distinction, which states, that Gods essence and energies are distinct, not only virtually but actually, the Energies
are uncreated ways in which God communicates Himself to creatures and trough which Theosis is achived
[Ide írhat] [Ide írhat] [Ide írhat]

Act6. First it implies, that since essentially complete and united, God has
no imperfection in Him, nothing lacking or desirable. Since He is perfect
He cannot do certain things or perform actions. This does not limit His
actuality since those operations and acts are ‘caused’ by imperfection and
something lacking. Like if I say my leg hurts since it is broken, that
feeling of pain, is in a way ‘caused’ by imperfection and has not actuality,
but is a result of the void of actuality, where it would be according to the
things nature to have a certain quality. Thus God as we now know, wholly
perfect in His being, He is also perfect in all ways. And as we know it
from the Philosophers of the Græcians 7, the Platonists and Neoplatonists,
the Good, which is prior to Being is self-outpouring, since most
essentially this is the meaning of Goodness, also love, since love
essentially and fundamentally nothing other than willing of the Good of
another. God both freely and necessarily does that, eternally in two ways.
Both in Himself, and outside. When inside himself, we call this Bullitio8,
in this, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are eternally and fully exist, all are
God, consubstantial, coequal and eternal. Ebullitio however, which is
outflow, creates the First Creation. This is most like God, but as creature
He is although very much united, in him are still distinction between,
essence and existence, he is the first being. This the Græcians 9 called
Nous, Ibn Sina called it the First Intellect and Ficino the Angelic
Mind.10Back to the One, now as we considered His Goodness, let us
consider His Will. The Divine Will, as we will see, is eternal, necessary,
unchanging, atemporal and free. Now many may posit that I just stated a
contradiction between freedom and necessity. In fact I did not, it is the
same as when we return to a souls choice between heaven and hell, the
soul sees all consequences of its choice, and thus its choice is eternal and
free. It is eternal and necessary since it is so free. The same applies to the
One. God since His supreme Goodness and knowledge and simplicity,
always perfectly, knows His will, and wills it, since He so perfectly
knows the highest perfection and Good, there appears no change in the

6
Actus Purus/ Pure Act, the Latin Aristotelian or Scholastic term which refers to the perfect wholeness and
actuality of God
7
The old version of the word ‘Greeks’
8
Bullitio, the Latin word for boiling, here it is a metaphor for how God shares or ‘outpours’ His being in
Himself, the pair of this is Ebullitio, boiling over, which signifies Gods emanation into what becomes the First
Hypostasis and consequently the Kosmos.
9
Here the word Græcians signify the Hellenic Neoplatonist philosophers
10
Here it is equated with the Nous, or First Hypostasis, since essentially Ficino does that
[Ide írhat] [Ide írhat] [Ide írhat]

Divine Will. It is eternal and unchanging and free since the unbounded
actuality of the One, which transcends being and non-being. God could
not change His Will, since if that was the case there would be a potential,
or better scenario, which God starts to will and not will the previous
thing, this is preposterous and degrades God to the mere
δημιουργός(Demiurge), an artisan, who not only is temporal, but at the
same time is a mixed existent, and also contained in being, to deny the
necessity and unchangingness of the Divine Will leads to unwanted and
devastating consequences. As proof, we know change is interconnected
with time, essentially time is the measure of change, so if God changed
He would be temporal. Also as proof for the latter, anything which has
potential is necessarily created, it is necessarily composite of at least
essence and existence, it needs a prior existent to infuse actuality and
being on its essence. Thus if God is anything mentioned above, He is not
God. Thus we reject these positions as false. However, God as the
unconditioned reality must be free, since if He were forced to do
something, which is not His will, He would not be free. Thus as we see
from these two necessities, God must be both free in His will, and act
necessarily. Thus we established the necessity of the Will. Many argued
that while, the will may be necessary its effects are temporal. To an extent
I agree. Finite things are finitely created. But these are not the works of
God directly, it is of the Soul of the World. God necessarily creates
outside time, since if He was creating temporally, this would imply
change and temporality within God. The response that God infinitely
wills these things is no answer, since we speak about act of Creation not
of will, also many held that the Divine will is synonymos with the act of
creation, thus the controversy becomes meaningless. So essentially the
First perfect creation is emanated, in eternity, this is the Nous or Divine
Intellect. The Intellect is both contingent and necessary, since Gods Will
is necessary and the act of emanation too is necessary. We arrive at this
point at the position that the whole Cosmos, above the realm of
generation, and below it is necessary, it is not deterministic though, all
rational creatures are free in their actions, the necessary will of God is in
perfect harmony with the free will of creatures.
[Ide írhat] [Ide írhat] [Ide írhat]

Now we shall move on Gods knowledge. It is apparent, that Gods knowledge, is

one with His existence, thus He is omniscient, since His knowledge is
existence, it is pure act, it encompasses all things. However the necessary
undivided existence has no division in even its knowledge, as properly
speaking, He has no distinct knowledge. This means he has no multiple
thoughts or ideas, His knowledge is eternally whole and undivided, He
knows all things trough the one and single act of understanding Himself.
Therefore the Forms of Plato are not found within, the Divine Logos, or
the self-comprehension of God. He knows all things as He is pure act, He
encompasses all actuality in absolute transcendent unity and in the same
way He encompasses all things in His knowledge trough self-knowledge.
If this were not the case, in the divine essence there would be multiplicity
since Gods knowledge is essentially existence. This would make Gods
knowledge contingent upon these ideas, this is impossible, this is the
reason why has no multiple thoughts in Himself. Even as said above, he
does not understand anything trough even the Forms, but rather He
understands the Forms trough Himself. Also He necessarily knows
Himself outside of time, since in His thoughts there is no change or
potentiæ. It is also necessary to state that Gods knowledge is the reason of
His Love, since knowledge is the condition of Love, since it compels men
to love what he knows, utterly transcendent, but the same happens inside
the One, when superessential, monadity flows within Himself into the
Son and outwards into the Universal Intellect or perfect creation.