Florin George Calian: The Inherited Duality of One in the Corpus Areopagiticum

The logical and ontological relation between one and two/duality (both as numbers or ontological entities) forces philosophical and theological thinking to its limits. An important issue in Plato’s Parmenides is how one becomes two (the second hypothesis), while for the Neoplatonist the issue is whether the same one is the case in the first and the second hypotheses. Both features are related and have in the background the problem of emergence of multiplicity from unity. The solution of Proclus is to follow the established Neoplatonist interpretation admitting that the one of the second hypothesis is another one (in Parm. 6.1040–41). But speaking about two ones the Neoplatonist develops another type of aporia, positing two entities in which the relation between the first and the second one remains problematic. Even if the nature of absolute transcendence of the divine in the theology of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite inherits unresolved issues of the nature of the transcendent one from the Neoplatonist schools, the Christian author of the Corpus Areopagiticum understands that both hypotheses of the Parmenides have the same transcendent object. The Areopagite interpretation goes, unexpectedly, against the Neoplatonist clear distinction between two separate transcendent objects, and seems to be closer to Plato, since he himself does not distinguishes these ones. This paper explores why (1) it is necessary for Pseudo-Dionysius to make this switch; and (2) whether this is related to its contemporary discussion on the natures of Christ.