In his reflection on the nature of evil, the Neoplatonic philosopher Proclus affirms that evil itself (to autokakon) is “also beyond the absolute non-being” (epekeina kai tou mēdamōs ontos). With this assumption, he intends to reinforce the thesis of the non-existence of absolute evil, conceived as totally separate from good, and contrasted with the collateral and parasitic existence of evil mixed with good. He thus maintains a distinction between absolute evil and relative evil, conceived with reference to the distinction between absolute non-being (i.e., nothingness) and relative non-being. In Proclus, the thesis of the non-existence of absolute evil is presented as a necessary consequence of the non-dualist theory of evil in the sphere of a protology that identifies the first Principle of all things in the primary Good (identical to the supra-essential One), and which aims to reconcile the absolute primacy of the latter with the presence of evil in some orders of reality.
In his tale entitled The Nameless City, Howard Phillips Lovecraft includes unspecified «paragraphs from the apocryphal nightmares of Damascius» among the «fragments» of the «cherished treasury of daemoniac lore» of the protagonist In the present essay, I suggest that there is a connection between this unusual reference and a note in the writer’s Commonplace Book, which refers to the notice by Photius (Bibl. cod. 130) on a lost work by Damascius that nowdays is generally referred to as Paradoxa and assumed to consist of a variegated collection of extraordinary stories and facts. I, therefore, delineate a general presentation of the testimony by the Byzantine Patriarch (very probably only indirectly known to Lovecraft), upon which I attempt to bring into focus the motivations that led the Providence to make the writer insert the name of Damascius in the fantastic plot of his story.
In late antiquity, in the context of the jagged tradition of Neo-Platonism,Aristotle’s Metaphysics and the specific science that is traced out in itare indicated with the current denominations of meta ta physika andtheologikē pragmateia, which are seen as consistent with one anotherand closely interconnected. In this connection, the Metaphysics, in thewake of previous philosophical readings, is considered as a treatise on“theological science” - the most elevated among the sciences - and thedenomination meta ta physika is seen in a specifically theological sense.According to a widespread Neo-Platonic reading, the science thematizedin the Metaphysics is “metaphysics” in that it is theological science,an epistemic discourse on divine realities, which, within the ordo rerum,transcend the physical ones, and, therefore, according to the ordo cognoscendi,must be studied after the latter.
IT
In late antiquity, in the context of the jagged tradition of Neo-Platonism, Aristotle’s Metaphysics and the specific science that is traced out in it are indicated with the current denominations of meta ta physika and theologikē pragmateia, which are seen as consistent with one another and closely interconnected. In this connection, the Metaphysics, in the wake of previous philosophical readings, is considered as a treatise on “theological science” - the most elevated among the sciences - and the denomination meta ta physika is seen in a specifically theological sense. According to a widespread Neo-Platonic reading, the science thematized in the Metaphysics is “metaphysics” in that it is theological science, an epistemic discourse on divine realities, which, within the ordo rerum, transcend the physical ones, and, therefore, according to the ordo cognoscendi, must be studied after the latter.
In the fragments of Damascius’ Vita Isidori one can observe a significant presence of the “marvellous.” In many cases, the marvellous seems to manifest a sacral and anagogical value in line with the philosophical and religious conceptions of late Neo-Platonism. A similar value of the marvellous can also be found in a passage of De Principiis (I, 14, 1–19), where Damascius hails the totally ineffable Principle as supremely marvellous, upon which he presents it as absolutely unknowable and expressible only in an aporetic way.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.