Pseudo-Dionysius: The Divine Names · 39 of 39 · tr. C.E. Rolt
Chapter 4, Section 1
Evil things are not entirety bad, but are bad only in some partial aspect.
360 περὶ τὴν ἄληστον του ἀγαθοῦ γνῶσιν.
361 Luke xii.
47 .
362 In the previous section D.
has maintained that all people ultimately desire the Good.
Hence it follows that all sin is due to ignorance; for could we all recognize that which we desire we would follow it.
This raises the question: What, then, does Scripture mean by speaking of men who sin knowingly?
To this D.
replies that wilful sin is wilful ignorance.
It is the failure to exercise the knowledge we possess: as when we know a fact which yet is not actually present to our minds.
We know (having been taught it) the desirableness of the Good, but we can shut this desirableness out from our minds and refuse to dwell upon it.
In such a case we refuse to exercise our knowledge.
363 This treatise is lost.
Themes
◆Evil As Privationtheology
Augustinian and Plotinian doctrine that evil has no positive being of its own but is a lack, distortion, or absence of the good — denying ontological dualism while preserving moral seriousness.
The passage explicitly defines evil as not being entirety bad but bad only in a partial aspect due to ignorance.
All passages →◆Gnosis Direct Knowledgesoteriology
Salvation through direct experiential knowledge of the divine nature, not through faith, ritual, or moral works alone.
The text emphasizes that recognizing the Good leads to following it and that sin is ultimately due to ignorance rather than inherent nature.
All passages →Related passages · 4 parallels
◆neoplatonism|Iamblichus: On the Mysteries|Chapter XIa
“In what follows, in which you think that ignorance and deception about these things are impiety and impurity, and in which you exhort us to the true developement of these particulars, is not, indeed, attended with any ambiguity, but is ackn…”
Both passages discuss the role of ignorance in sin or impiety, with Pseudo-Dionysius arguing that wilful sin is wilful ignorance and the second passage discussing ignorance and deception as impiety, though in a theurgical context.
◆neoplatonism|Select Works of Plotinus|Select Works, Section 81 (part 1)
“Section 6 6.
If this be so, how do we explain the teaching that evils can never pass away but "exist of necessity," that "while evil has no place in the divine order, it haunts mortal nature and this place for ever"?
Does this mean that h…”
Both passages discuss the nature of evil and its relationship to the Good. They explore the idea that evil is not entirely separate from the Good and that sin or evil can be attributed to a form of ignorance or failure to recognize the Good.
◆neoplatonism|Select Works of Plotinus|Select Works, Section 203 (part 1)
“Section 16 16.
But if all this is true, what room is left for evil?
Where are we to place wrong-doing and sin?
How explain that in a world organized in good, the efficient agents [human beings] behave unjustly, commit sin?
And how comes…”
Both passages explore the nature of evil and sin within a framework of ultimate goodness. They both suggest that evil is a result of a deviation or ignorance rather than an inherent force, and they discuss the role of knowledge and will in sinful behavior.
◆platonism|Plato: Republic|Section 1m
“Yes, I said, that they should begin by reproaching us with our ignorance of the good, and then presume our knowledge of it-- for the good they define to be knowledge of the good, just as if we understood them when they use the term `good'--…”
Both passages discuss the concept of the Good and the role of ignorance in moral behavior. They explore the idea that sin or wrongdoing arises from a failure to recognize or exercise knowledge of the Good, highlighting the complexity of understanding and pursuing the Good.