7/27/2019 Sherrard -- Man and the Presence of Evil in Christian and Platonic Doctrine (Part I)..doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sherrard-man-and-the-presence-of-evil-in-christian-and-platonic-doctrine 1/9

Philip Sherrard. “Man and the Presence of Evil in Christian and

Platonic Doctrine (Part I)”.

http://www.stdiesinco!parativereli"ion.co!/ploads/#rticlePD$s

/%&.pdf .

 Man and the Presence of Evil in Christian and PlatonicDoctrine

byPhilip Sherrard

Sorce: Studies in Comparative Religion' ol. ' *o.+. , -orld

-isdo!' Inc.

www.stdiesinco!parativereli"ion.co!

$ the !ain theories to accont for the eistence of the world'or its apparent eistence' one is the theor0 of e!anation (or!anifestation) and another is the Christian theor0 of creation.

 1he theor0 of e!anation2it !a0 3e called Platonic (and this

incldes its neo4Platonic develop!ents) since it is in this for!that it presents itself in western tradition2is 3riefl0 as follows.

 1he ne2the 5ood or the Spre!e2is a3solte and perfect. #sa3solte' It !st contain in Itself the seeds of ever0thin"' thepossi3ilit0 of ever0thin"' for if there were so!e possi3ilit0 otsideIt' It wold 3e' not a3solte' 3t li!ited 30 this etraneospossi3ilit0. #s perfect' It !st distri3te this perfection to thefllest etent possi3le. Its "oodness !st 3e ever0where. $or if itwere lac6in" an0where' if there were so!e part of a possi3leniverse fro! which so!ethin" of this "oodness were eclded'

then the ne wold 3e failin" Its own natre' It wold 3econtradictin" Itself: It wold not 3e as perfect as It cold 3e' Itwold 3e ad!ittin" a de"ree of i!perfection there where it !i"hti!part "reater perfection. 1hs' not onl0 !st the ne containthe seeds of ever0thin" within Itself' 3t It !st also !anifestthose which are capa3le of !anifestation. 1his !anifestin"activit0 epresses a necessit0' is necessar0: !anifestation is a

7/27/2019 Sherrard -- Man and the Presence of Evil in Christian and Platonic Doctrine (Part I)..doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sherrard-man-and-the-presence-of-evil-in-christian-and-platonic-doctrine 2/9

necessar0 conse7ence of the fact not that the ne is a3solte'3t that It is perfect' is the 5ood a3solte.

 1his necessit0 of !anifestation' this necessar0 3rea6in" ot ofthe ne fro! Its self4inclosed isolation' !i"ht see! to i!pl0 a

contradiction: that which affects the freedo! of the ne. It woldsee! that the ne is nder constraint' in that It has to 3rin" Itselfforth into !anifestation' has to e!anate. 8t in this case it is notthe ne that is Spre!e' 3t this other power accordin" to whichit is co!pelled to enter into !anifestation. 1hs' the ne' if It isthe Spre!e' cannot 3e nder an0 constraint or necessit0 to!anifest Itself. So there is the contradiction that as the a3solte5ood It !st !anifest Itself' 3t as the Spre!e It cannot 3ender an0 constraint. 1his contradiction is frther co!plicated 30the fact that even if It were not nder an0 constraint to enter into!anifestation' still the ne cold not actali9e an0 of the seedsof !anifestation It contains within Itself. 1o actali9e an0 of thesepossi3ilities is to ad!it that there is so!ethin" other and lessthan the ne' that the ne is not' in Itself' all4inclsive' is nottotal ealit0' and this cannot 3e ad!itted ;Mi"ht one shift this tothe “eistential4!oral” plane and sa0 that this theolo"ical non4ad!ission is of the sa!e 6ind as oe"elin<s anal0sis of Mar<srefsal to ad!it that he is not his own ori"in=>. *ot onl0 thereforecan the ne not possess an0 possi3ilit0 of self4deter!ination' 3talso It cannot contain the seeds of !anifestation in Itself in an0actali9ed state' or in an0 state capa3le of 3ein" actali9ed' or inan0 state that i!plies an0 distinction fro! or differentiation in Itsentirel0 si!ple and totall0 self4sfficient natre.  1he netherefore' in Itself' cannot 3e the principle of !anifestation. -hatthen 3rin"s forth or e!anates is not the ne in Itself' 3t pre8ein". 8ein" is the first deter!ination of the ne' and this in itstrn deter!ines all the s3se7ent ran6s and conditions of!anifestation. 1his does not !ean that it is the ne thatdeter!ines 8ein": we have seen that this is an i!possi3ilit0' for itwold involve the disrption of the a3solte si!plicit0 and nit0and self4sfficienc0 and non4deter!ina3le natre of the ne. n

the contrar0' 8ein" deter!ines itself . 1hs the ne in Itself isee!pt fro! an0

7/27/2019 Sherrard -- Man and the Presence of Evil in Christian and Platonic Doctrine (Part I)..doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sherrard-man-and-the-presence-of-evil-in-christian-and-platonic-doctrine 3/9

constraint. It is !etaph0sicall0 free. Even pre 8ein"' theprinciple of !anifestation' is still free' even tho"h this!anifestation is a necessar0 act. It is 3ecase it is free that itnecessaril0 acts in this wa0. If it were an0thin" less than free' itwold 3e constrained to act in so!e other wa0. #s it is' 3ein"

free' it acts what it is: not in accordance with its natre2whichass!es that its action is a conse7ence of its natre' which it isnot23t as it is. Its action is itself' ?st as its non4activit0 is itself@and 3oth are what it wills' tho"h the willin" and the action andthe non4activit0 are all one.

$ro! the Christian point of view' this theor0 of e!anationsee!s to leave an n3rid"ea3le "ap 3etween the ne in Itstotall0 non4differentiated and self4sfficient nit0' and an0 de"reeof deter!ination or !ltiplicit0. If the ne contains in Itself all theseeds of !anifestation' It !st contain the! not onl0 in a statewhich is not actali9ed' 3t also in one which is free fro! an0possi3ilit0 of actali9ation. 1he0 !st 3e so identified with thene' so totall0 s3s!ed in Its ori"inal natre' that there is nopossi3ilit0 of an0 distinction : the0 are essentiall0 and necessaril0one with Its entirel0 si!ple indivisi3ilit0. In a wa0' the0 constittea 6ind of 5odhead withot a 5od. 1he0 have no athor. #nd in sofar as the0 are identified with the ne' the0 cannot the!selvesprodce or !anifest an0thin". 1he0 cold onl0 prodce or!anifest an0thin" on condition that the0 3eca!e distinct fro!the ne' and this is i!possi3le' since the ne' s3s!in" in Itselftotal ealit0' cannot ad!it an0thin" other than Itself . Aow thendoes distinction or differentiation' or even the appearance ofdistinction or differentiation' first arise= In Platonic and neo4Platonic theor0 there is and can 3e no' answer to this 7estion2orat least no answer which is not a 6ind of deus ex machina li6e' forinstance' ProclsB theor0 of the henads, which is an atte!pt to3rid"e this "ap 3etween the ne and !ltiplicit0' or theappearance of !ltiplicit0' while leavin" ni!paired the perfectnit0 and non4deter!ination of the ne.

In Christian theor02and here reference is to Patristic athors'not to the Scholastics25od' the #3solte or the Spre!e' is notre"arded as the lo"ical 5od4nit0 of the Platonic tradition.Certainl0' 5od is ne' 3t this nit0 incldes !ltiplicit0' incldesthe divine ener"ies and powers. 5odBs essence is' li6e thePlatonic ne' totall0 transcendent' totall0 non4differentiated'totall0 ndeter!ined and inco!!nica3le@ 3t Ais ener"ies and

7/27/2019 Sherrard -- Man and the Presence of Evil in Christian and Platonic Doctrine (Part I)..doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sherrard-man-and-the-presence-of-evil-in-christian-and-platonic-doctrine 4/9

powers are !ltiple' creative' co!!nica3le. #nd it !st 3estressed that tho"h these ener"ies and powers aredistin"ished in this wa0 fro! the divine essence' the0 are not onthat accont said to 3e an0 less real or less a3solte than theessence@ nor !st one thin6 of the essence apart fro! the

ener"ies and powers' or vice versa' in sch a wa0 as to conceiveof the essence as nener"i9ed or of the ener"ies as inessential@nor finall0 is the essence to 3e re"arded as a sperior order ofealit0 in which the ener"ies and powers are s3s!ed and losetheir differentiation and distinction. 5od is not to 3e identifiedwith Ais essence alone' nor is the essence to 3e tho"ht of as Aissperior or !ore inclsive or a3solte natre' and nor are Aispowers and ener"ies to 3e identified with Ais essence. It !i"ht 3esaid that while in Platonic theory God's essence isabstracted from all His principial determinations,

including that of His Being' and this essence alone' in itsperfectl0 ndeter!ined' non4differentiated' and entirel0 si!plenatre is tho"ht of as e!3racin" in Itself the totalit0 of the eal'as itself constittin" the #3solte' so that all deter!inations2allpowers and ener"ies' even pre 8ein"2are in the final anal0sisseen !erel0 as contin"ent and relative !odes or aspects orattri3tes of the essence' in Christian theory it is preciselythis act of abstraction that is a primal doctrinal error .

 1hs' in Christian theor0 there is no 7estion of howdifferentiation and distinction arise fro! the nit0 of the ne:

differentiation and distinction are inherent in an actualized statein this nit0 in the 3e"innin". 5od' the #3solte' is ne4in4Man0' si!plicit04in4distinction' a divided indivisi3ilit0@ and' as has3een said' to see6 to resolve

7/27/2019 Sherrard -- Man and the Presence of Evil in Christian and Platonic Doctrine (Part I)..doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sherrard-man-and-the-presence-of-evil-in-christian-and-platonic-doctrine 5/9

this parado 30 appealin" to a hi"her principle in which itscontradictor0 ter!s are s3s!ed and reconciled is a 3asicdoctrinal error.

It is 3ecase of this paradoical idea of the #3solte that

Christian theor0 is a3le to envisa"e an act of creation which isentirel0 free and spontaneos' and no necessar0 conse7ence ofthe #3solte 3ein" what it is. 5od creates' 3rin"s forth ot ofnothin"' thro"h the spontaneos' ndeter!ined operation of Aispowers and ener"ies. What He creates—the wholeintelligible order, including the intelligible archetypes ofthe visible world—is not a necessary part of His nature @neither is it to 3e principiall0 identified either with Ais essence' orAis 8ein"' or Ais !ltiple powers and ener"ies. It is a new !odeof realit0' not necessar0 in an0 wa0. In other words' this theor0see!s to e!phasi9e 5odBs free4will' Ais freedo!' in a !annerthat a!onts to an eclsion of the idea of divine necessit0which pla0s so i!portant a part in the e!anation theor0. 5odcreates 3ecase it is Ais pleasre' Ais "lor0' to create' andthat is all' h!anl0' to 3e said. It is nderstood in 3oth theoriesthat nothin" is added to 5odBs natre 30 the eistence of theworld: Ais plenitde and power are fll and ni!paired' self4sfficient and self4contained' 3efore either e!anation or creation.8t while the e!anation theor0 posits !anifestation as anecessar0 conse7ence of the a3solte "oodness of the ne' theChristian theor0 of creation appears to do awa0 with all idea ofnecessit0 where the Divine is concerned: it !i"ht e7all0 have3een 5odBs pleasre not to create@ Ae cold 3e 5od' a3solteand infinite Power and Perfection' withot showin" forth Aispower and perfection in an0 creatre. Ae cold refrain fro!creation and still 3e o!nipotent.

#t first si"ht this see!s an a3srdit0. o"icall0 it is ana3srdit0. 1here is no escapin" the lo"ic of the fact that if 5od isperfect2which is also Christian teachin"2Ae !st wish todistri3te Ais "oodness in all possi3le wa0s' so that to refrain

fro! creatin" or e!anatin" wold !ean that there were so!epossi3le wa0s of distri3tin" Ais 5oodness which Ae deniesAi!self. r if 5od is o!nipotent' which a"ain is part of Christianteachin"' how can Ae refrain fro! !anifestin" this o!nipotencein all wa0s possi3le=2one of these wa0s 3ein" thro"h theeistence of the world. If the Christian is to den0 all idea ofnecessit0 with respect to 5od' even the necessit0 of necessaril0

7/27/2019 Sherrard -- Man and the Presence of Evil in Christian and Platonic Doctrine (Part I)..doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sherrard-man-and-the-presence-of-evil-in-christian-and-platonic-doctrine 6/9

actin" in a certain wa0 3ecase Ae is a3solte and infinitefreedo! and o!nipotence' then the Christian !st sa0 that hisaccont of creation is not onl0 one that transcends lo"ic 3t alsoone that contradicts lo"ic. Ae !st 3e a3le to affir! what i!pliesa lo"ical contradiction2what is' in other words' an i!possi3ilit0

fro! a lo"ical point of view.

#ltho"h it is i!possi3le to enter into an0 fll discssion of thethe!e here' so!ethin" !st 3e said at this point of the differentnderstandin"s in Platonic and Christian theories of therelationship 3etween lo"ic and what transcends lo"ic' for thisdifference ver0 !ch deter!ines their s3se7ent doctrinalfor!lations' especiall0 with re"ard to what the0 considerpossi3le and i!possi3le. -hat Platonic theory presupposes inthis respect is that divine, or metaphysical, principles,although they stand above logic in their essence, yet donot contradict logic and that doctrinal formulations ormetaphysical ideas must comply with the laws of logicbecause these laws rest upon an essentially metaphysicalbasis. 1his 3ein" so' it follows that the hierarchy ofmetaphysical principles is reflected !in so far as it is orcan be reflected" in the human intelligence in a purelylogical order, so that there is a strict relationship ofanalogy or correspondence between metaphysical

 principles and their formulation on the mental and logical plane# $he converse of this also applies% where theformulation of meta&physical principles is concerned, theformulation that stands highest in the logical order willdemonstrate the precedence of its corresponding

 principle in the metaphysical order .  1he strctre of lo"ic'that is

%

7/27/2019 Sherrard -- Man and the Presence of Evil in Christian and Platonic Doctrine (Part I)..doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sherrard-man-and-the-presence-of-evil-in-christian-and-platonic-doctrine 7/9

to sa0' reflects and reprodces on the level of h!an thin6in"the strctre of the niverse@ and an0thin" which fro! the lo"icalpoint of view presents itself as an a3srdit0 is on that accont6nown to 3e also a !etaph0sical i!possi3ilit0. In fact' a3srdit0and i!possi3ilit0 in the Platonic view are interchan"ea3le' or

s0non0!os' ter!s.

In Christian theor0' this 6ind of relationship 3etween lo"ic andwhat transcends lo"ic is not ad!itted in an0thin" li6e the sa!ewa0. Indeed' it !i"ht al!ost 3e said that Christian theor0!aintains in this respect a set of presppositions opposite tothose of Platonic theor0: that ;+>  there is no necessar0 pre4esta3lished analo"0 or correspondence 3etween the lo"ical orderand the !etaph0sical order@ that so far fro! doctrinalfor!lations havin" to o3serve the strictest lo"ical laws on theass!ption that these laws have a !etaph0sical 3asis' ;> thereis in fact no inte"ral accord 3etween lo"ical h!an tho"ht andwhat transcends it@ and that ;%>  or ina3ilit0 to accept acontradiction as epressin" !ore ade7atel0 the trth of thin"sthan an0 lo"ical state!ent derives' not fro! or wisdo!' 3tfro! or foolishness' as St. Pal has it. 1hs' fro! the Christianpoint of view a lo"ical a3srdit0 30 no !eans on that accontdenotes a !etaph0sical i!possi3ilit0@ and what is reall0 a3srd'and reall0 3etra0s or i!potence' lies not in thin6in" that 5odcan 3e and act in a wa0 that is lo"ical' 3t in thin6in" that Aecannot 3e or act in an0 other wa0. Indeed' fro! this sa!e pointof view' a condition of attainin" !etaph0sical nderstandin" itselfis a 3attle a"ainst allowin" the !ind to 3e captivated ands3ded 30 the lo"ical constrctions of tho"ht and lan"a"e. In!ore positive ter!s' this also !eans that Christian theor0 !stassert that the hi"hest ideas the h!an !ind can "rasp of!etaph0sical realities are li6el0 to 3e those which are essentiall0paradoical. Sch ideas are trans4lo"ical' in the sense that the0cannot 3e e!3raced 30 lo"ic' or srpassed or resolved 30 an0idea whose ter!s are lo"icall0 consistent. 1he0 ecel the li!its ofprel0 lo"ical tho"ht. $aced with these ideas' the !ind

constrained 30 prel0 lo"ical cate"ories will alwa0s see6 toeli!inate the!' either 30 affir!in" one proposition of theparado at the epense of the other' or 30 for!latin" asperior lo"icall0 consistent idea in which 3oth propositions ofthe parado (!tall0 eclsive fro! the lo"ical point of view)appear.. to 3e a3sor3ed and reconciled. Sch eli!ination'

 ?stified so lon" as the realities indicated 30 the parado

7/27/2019 Sherrard -- Man and the Presence of Evil in Christian and Platonic Doctrine (Part I)..doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sherrard-man-and-the-presence-of-evil-in-christian-and-platonic-doctrine 8/9

the!selves pertain to the lo"ical order' is not so when therealities indicated are spra4lo"ical.  1he law of the lo"ical orderthat a thin" cannot si!ltaneosl0 3e and not 3e is valid on the7antitative level to which it applies@ it is !eanin"less whenapplied to spra4lo"ical 7alitative trths. 1o ar"e that what

!a0 3e lo"icall0 stated a3ot !etaph0sical realities isnecessaril0 ontolo"icall0 tre is to !aintain a paralo"is!involvin" a radical confsion of levels. 1hs' the essentiall0lo"ical ar"!ent de!onstratin" that the natre of the #3solte isso and so and that fro! this it follows that !anifestation is anecessar0 conse7ence' is neither here nor there. 1his is not tosa0 that lo"ical dedctions relatin" to the eistence of !an inthis world cannot 3e !ade fro! the Christian doctrine ofcreation. 8t it is to sa0 that this doctrine itself involves a lo"icala3srdit0. It is also to sa0 that other aspects of Christian teachin"

derivin" fro! this initial doctrine !st also have a3ot the!so!ethin" that is lo"icall0 a3srd.

8oth Platonic and Christian theories a"ree that !anifestationin the 3e"innin" is "ood. 1his "oodness is not of corse"oodness a3solte' for this 3elon"s to 5od alone. It is a relative"oodness. Co!pared with the perfection of 5od (if co!parisons!a0 3e !ade in this sphere) a de"ree of i!perfection hasentered in. 8t it shold 3e !ade 7ite clear that neither in thePlatonic nor in the Christian theor0 is the presence of evil in!anifestation a necessar0 conse7ence of this de"ree ofi!perfection. It is so!eti!es ar"ed that in so far as an0thin"falls short of the a3solte perfection of 5od' to that etent it is3ond to 3e i!plicated in evil. 1here

F

7/27/2019 Sherrard -- Man and the Presence of Evil in Christian and Platonic Doctrine (Part I)..doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sherrard-man-and-the-presence-of-evil-in-christian-and-platonic-doctrine 9/9

is' accordin" to this ar"!ent' so!e necessar0 connection3etween i!perfection' or relative perfection' and evil ;enterconcept of “perfective”>@ the0 are even in so!e sense identified'as if the0 were the sa!e thin". 1his is not the case with the twotheories nder review. In neither does a relative perfection

necessaril0 i!pl0 the presence of evil@ it !a0 i!pl0 the possi3ilit0of evil' 3t that is another !atter. In 3oth theories' on thecontrar0' what is relativel0 perfect !a0 3e entirel0 free fro! evil.In 3oth theories' !anifestation !a0 3e free fro! the actalpresence of evil. 1his is so!ethin" particlarl0 e!phasi9ed in theChristian tradition @ indeed' in a certain sense' it is at the core ofChristianit0' 3ein" one of the essential aspects of theIncarnation : Christ ass!es h!an natre in ever0 respectecept that in Ai! this h!an2and created2natre is free fro!evil  ;See GS<s “Gohn of Da!ascs” article on “3la!eless

passions”>. It is fro! this that derives the Christian pro!ise of anew Aeaven and a new Earth2of a created eistence' that is tosa0' which while not identified with the perfection of 5od Ai!selfis none the less entirel0 free fro! evil@ and it is fro! this too thatderives the Christian theor0 of the sacra!ents' a theor0 7ite!eanin"less if evil is necessaril0 inherent in ever0thin" that iscreated. Aence the actal presence of evil for the Christian is nonecessar0 conse7ence of creation. If it is a necessar0conse7ence of certain phases of !anifestation in Platonictheor0' this is not 3ecase what is !anifest is necessaril0

i!perfect and hence evil. It is 3ecase certain lower phases of!anifestation 3rin" it into contact with evil.

(To be continued)

&