Negative Theology (Maimonides)

Negative Theology (Maimonides)

• Central claim: The correct description of God is by negations (via negativa); positive attributions (power, knowledge, life, will, etc.) are problematic because they imply predicates that cannot properly apply to God as He truly is. The growth of religious knowledge is the growth in the number of attributes one recognizes God is not.

• Key phrasing and rationale:

  • “The Torah speaketh in the language of the sons of man.” Positive, anthropomorphic descriptions in Scripture are not literal descriptions of God.
  • To describe God properly, one must use negations and avoid affirmations that imply extra features or a multiplicity of essences.
  • The purpose of negation is to lead the mind toward the ultimate, proper understanding of God, i.e., away from limitations imputed by human language.
  • The demonstration that God is existent of necessity, simple (no composition), and without any extrinsic ‘That’ outside His ‘What’ underpins why affirmative predicates do not fit God.

• Core concepts: via negativa (negative theology) vs affirmative predicates

  • Affirmative attributes (e.g., powerful, knowing, living, willing): These are taken to imply something about God’s essence or about Him having attributes that are not truly part of Him, per Maimonides.
  • Negative attributes (negations): These are the only reliable way to describe God without restating what He is not, e.g., not a body, not dead, not like heaven, not like the intellect, not caused, not mutable, etc.
  • The aim of negative theology is not mere ignorance but a disciplined ascent toward truth by negation.

• Accidents, essence, and action: how attributes are understood

  • Maimonides argues that many traditional attributes about God are not attributes of His essence but attributes of His actions in the world.
  • If one posits attributes of God’s essence, one risks multiplying God’s nature with accidental properties.
  • The text emphasizes that when attributes are predicated of God, they are often not about His essence but are indicative of action, or they indicate absolute perfection by negation (i.e., negating privation).
  • An important distinction for him: attributes of God that are non-essential (accidents) should not be treated as true essences in God.

• The fire analogy: one simple active quality underlies many apparent diverse actions

  • Fire: melts, hardens, cooks, burns, bleaches, blackens—multiple effects attributed to fire.
  • The point: though many actions appear diverse, they can be explained by one active quality (heat).
  • Applied to God: diverse actions attributed to God (knowledge, power, will, governance) are activity under one simple essence; there is no multiplicity in God’s essence that would require separate attributes.
  • This supports the claim that every attribute predicated of God is either an attribute of His action or a negation of a proposition about His essence.

• The “absence of multiplicity” in God

  • Since God’s essence is simple and indivisible, there can be no multiplicity of inner notions or “parts” that require separate attributes.
  • Every positive attribution would imply a separate feature beyond His simple essence, which is contrary to God’s simplicity.
  • Thus, God cannot have an affirmative attribute in any respect.

• Negative attributes as the path to knowledge of God

  • Negative attributes (e.g., “not a body,” “not dead,” “not like the heavens,” “not like the intellect”) are essential for approaching the divine quiddity, precisely because they avoid adding anything to God’s essence.
  • These negations guide the mind toward the utmost reach of apprehension of Him, ensuring no multiplicity or extraneous attributes attach to God.
  • Even negations are not applied to God in terms of a positive description; rather, they serve to shut down ways of thinking about Him that would mischaracterize Him.

• The protracted argument about attributes: what can be known about God

  • We can say God exists and is necessary, and He is not composed of parts; that He is eternal and has no cause; that He is living (in a way different from other beings) and that He is not like the creatures with bodies or matter.
  • The negations serve to demonstrate that attributed qualities must be understood as signs of His action or as negations of improper predicates, not as descriptions of His essence.
  • The negations also help articulate that God’s governance and the order of the world arise from a willing being, not by chance, underscoring purposeful creation and sustained order.

• The epistemic aim: degrees of proximity to God through negation

  • Differences in degree of apprehension among people arise because some negate further or more accurately than others.
  • The process is not the same as empirical or conceptual acquisition; it is a standing demonstration that rejects certain notions about God.
  • The more one negates what cannot apply to God (as demonstrated), the nearer one becomes to the true reality of God insofar as human faculties can approach it.
  • The nature of revelation and human reasoning is such that a person may become “closer” to God through a more rigorous practice of negation than another who clings to any positive attributes.

• The “captain to his ship” metaphor and the limits of language

  • God’s relation to the world is sometimes described by metaphor (captain to his ship) to guide the mind toward governance and order, but this is not the true likeness.
  • The aim of these metaphors is to direct thought toward God’s role in creation, not to provide a complete or literal picture of God.
  • These metaphors are acknowledged as conveniences to aid contemplation, not adequate descriptions of God in Himself.

• The concluding exhortation: awe and cognitive humility before God

  • Contemplating God’s essence or His actions reveals the limits of human intellect and language.
  • When the intellect contemplates God’s essence, it fails; when it contemplates His actions, it may mislead; when it attempts to magnify God via attributes, eloquence becomes weariness.
  • This response to the mystery of God emphasizes humility and reverence in theological inquiry.

• The scholarly context and sources cited

  • The approach draws on the Guide of the Perplexed, trans. S. Pines (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963), Chapters 53, 58, 59.
  • This passage is presented with permission, reflecting a traditional Jewish endorsement of via negativa.

• Study questions (as a guide for exam prep)
  1) Why does Maimonides insist that a correct description of God must be in terms of negative statements (negations), rather than in terms of affirmations?
  2) Maimonides and other Jewish thinkers do say of God that God is “powerful and knowing and willing.” Yet these are positive statements and so (according to him) do not properly apply to God. What is being said when these statements are made?

• Real-world and philosophical implications

  • The via negativa safeguards against anthropomorphism, ensuring that human language does not crudely reify God.
  • It supports a coherent doctrine of divine simplicity, sovereignty, and unity by rejecting extraneous predicates.
  • It highlights the limits of human epistemology in matters about the divine and encourages intellectual humility.
  • The method contrasts with natural theology that attempts to attribute positive properties to God directly, showing a different path to religious understanding and reverence.

• Connections to broader themes in the book and lectures

  • Provides a critical counterpoint to views that treat religious beliefs as primarily grounded in empirical or logical necessity of God’s properties.
  • Demonstrates how one can argue for God’s existence and sovereignty through negation rather than by listing positive predicates.
  • Links to discussions of how belief systems manage the gap between human language and the divine beyond human description.

• Notable terms to remember for exams

  • Via negativa (negative theology)
  • Negations vs affirmations
  • Accidents (in the sense of attributes or aptitudes of souls, not essential properties)
  • Simplicity and univocal predicates about God
  • The “Torah speaks in the language of the sons of man” insight
  • The distinction between attributes of action and attributes of essence
  • The epistemic ladder of negation and the degree of proximity to God

• Quick reference points from the text (for review)

  • God is described by negations to avoid attributing impermanent or composite features to Him.
  • There is one simple essence behind all divine action; multiple predicates of action do not imply multiple essences.
  • Negations guide understanding and are essential to approaching the divine mystery.

• Summary takeaway

  • Maimonides presents a rigorous, non-anthropomorphic account of God through negation: true knowledge of God arises by negating what God is not, rather than by affirming what God is, because affirmation risks attaching human-like limitations to the divine reality.