the mystical theology of valentin weigel - DataSpace at Princeton ...

ears good news to the church.” 397 Elsewhere, Caputo closes the circle, calling negative
theology “a salient example of this recognition that language is caught up in a selfdefeating
enterprise.” 398 In short, if Eckhart spoke of a God who could delight Hegel (as
recounted in Chapter 1), then perhaps Dionysius speaks of a God whom even Derrida
could respect. 399 If religion and postmodernism could perhaps speak to each other
through negative theology, then “getting negative theology right” is what allows the
apology to be successful. 400 The account of negative theology that might serve as such an
interface with secular postmodernism emphasizes the negation of self (as a religious
companion-in-arms in postmodern philosophy’s attack on the unified Cartesian subject),
it emphasizes negative theology’s apophaticism (likewise a response to the positive
revaluation of the aporia and the critique of logocentrism) and, finally, it emphasizes
negative theology’s rigorous denial of all names and attributes of God, including Being (a
correlate to the critique of ontotheology). 401 As Caputo writes, for instance, the via
397 Caputo’s work is explicitly directed against a socially and politically conservative Christianity where the
question ‘What Would Jesus Do?’ (hence the title of Caputo’s book) is used by the ‘Christian Right’ as “a
hammer to beat their enemies.” The book as a whole is explicitly intended as a defence of “Christian
socialism,” but here I am citing John D. Caputo, What Would Jesus Deconstruct?: The Good News of
Postmodernism for the Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 26-27 and 30-31.
398 John D. Caputo, "Mysticism and Transgression: Derrida and Meister Eckhart," in Derrida and
Deconstruction, 24-38 (New York: Routledge), 29. See also Kevin Hart, The Trespass of the Sign:
Deconstruction, Theology and Philosophy (New York: Fordham University Press, 2000), cited in Shira
Wolosky, "And "Other" Negative Theology: On Derrida's "How to Avoid Speaking: Denials"," Poetics
Today 19, no. 2 (Summer 1998): 261-280.
399 On Hegel’s response to first hearing about Eckhart, see Chapter 1 of this dissertation.
400 A clear example of this stress on getting negative theology right is the work of Ian Almond. For instance,
he responds to Derrida’s lecture “How to Avoid Speaking: Denials” point by point, correcting Derrida’s
reading of Eckhart and Dionysius. Almond, 329-344.
401 On negative theology and the Cartesian subject, Perl writes: “In Dionysius’ metaphysics, then, there is
no such thing as an individual, a being conceived as a closed, self-contained unit which extrinsically enters
into relations with other beings” and later “Dionysius opens a major area of dialogue between Dionysius
and recent phenomenological thought, overcoming the characteristically modern duality between subject
and object.” Perl, 80, 112-113) Perl is enthusiastic about what Dionysius can offer postmodern philosophy:
“His thought can thus also contribute to contemporary reflection on technology and the related area of
‘environmental philosophy.’ The Dionysian, Neoplatonic understanding of all things...may be set against
the objectifying and reductionist view of nature which has led to its exploitation and destruction.” Perl, 113.
On negative theology and ontotheology, see for instance Amy Hollywood, "Preaching as Social Practice in
153