An Appraisal of John Scotus Eriugena
An Appraisal of John Scotus Eriugena
An Appraisal of John Scotus Eriugena
Abstract
The departure from the philosophical epochs of Boethius and Pseudo – Dionysius the
Areopogite ushered in the remarkable reign of another philosopher of stature in the west. He
was a remarkable Irish monk names; John Scotus Eriugena, who produced the first full scale
philosophical system in the middle ages. Having being adequately equipped in the monastery
with intellectual process and mastery in latin and Greek, as well as avalanche of
philosophical materials at his disposal, his systematic writings evidently sported him out as
the most impressive thinker of his century. The predominant motive of this paper is to
undergo and appraisal of John Scotus Eriugena’s “Division of Nature”. Through this
masterpiece, he first proved the existence of God through fides et ratio and made an acute
division of nature into four classes. We hope to pragmatize this with the armoury of his
Among the philosophical epochs, medieval era is highly problematic and controversial in
reflective ramifications. This is antecedent from the fact that, in trying to portray the
doctrines of this period; one is confronted with the dilemma of the span and core
philosophers involved on the one hand and the dilemma of definition and schools or
movement involved congruence to the fore assertion, Garvey and stang room readily affirms
that as we find ourselves in the middle of the middle ages, it is worth pausing to reflect one a
The term middle ages is itself the result of a bit of unknown renaissance spin-doctoring. A
number of similar expressions are coined, which reduced centuries of human history to the
significance of a mere temporal bridge. The Latin “medium aevum” among them where
Medieval metaphysics and philosophy in general operated on the basis of truths secured
through revelation, but many sought to explicitly push reason as far as it could go. Arriving
from the already established premises that, medieval thinkers employed the weapon of
“logic” (reason) and faith or philosophy and theology in the propagation of their Christian
doctrines and proofs or the existence of God, raises these interrogations: what can reason
discover on its own? How can philosophy help us to make sense of what we take to be true?
These are the two fair questions, pursued not just by Russell alone in the last century, but by
The scholastics of the high and late middle ages get their name form he Latin word
“scholastics” itself derived from the Greek and for “school” The scholastics were simply
refer to as “the able – schooled men” or men of the schools and the schools in question were
initially cathedral schools which were set up to ensure an educated clergy. By the inference
above, John Scotus Eriugena can rightly be identical as a scholastic philosopher (Garvey &
Stargroom; 163).
Having clearly laid the formidable preamble to grasp his thesis by first been acquainted with
his definition of nature, division and analysis which form the next section called
conceptualization of terms.
CLARIFICATION OF TERMS
Historically, the first crime or sin against philosophy was the horrible murder of Socrates, the
second was attempted but aborted assassination of Aristotle; the third would be my deliberate
negligence for the clarification of the fundamental concepts which constitute the topical
intellectual deliberative issues in order to eschew absurdism; such concepts which includes:
Nature: Etymologically, nature comes from the Latin word “natura” and from the Greek
words “physius, physika” which collectively entail nature, physical or anything that appeals
to appearance or senses. This however, is not the sense in which John Scotus Eriugena
applied it. To Eriugena, by nature, he meant “everything there is”. In this sense, nature
Division: secondly, when John Scotus Eriugena talks about Division of Naturel he has in
mind the ways in which the whole of reality – God and creatures – is divided. In addition, the
word division has a special meaning. Eriugena says that there are two ways of understanding
the structure of reality: one is by division and the other is by analysis. By division, he means
moving from the mere universal to the less universal, as when one divides substance into
corporeal and incorporeal. In turn, incorporeal can be divided into living and inanimate, and
so on.
Analysis: on the other hand, by analysis, the process of division is reversed and the elements
didvided off from substance are worked back into the unity of substance. Underlying
Eriugena’s method of division and analysis was his conviction that, our minds work in
accordance with metaphysical realities. Our minds are not simply dealing with concepts when
we “divide” and “analyse” we are describing how things really exist and behave (Stumpf,
148).
Eriugena argues that, if God is the ultimate unity them things and the world are divisions of
this basic unity and analysis is the process by which things return to God. The Laws of
thought, according to Eriugena parallel the law of reality. With these distinction in mind,
Eriugena argues that there is ony one true reality and that all other things depend upon it and
return to it; this reality is God. Within the total reality of nature a fourfold division is
possible.
According to Eriugena, there is first: nature that creates and is not created, second; nature that
is created and create; nature that is created and does not create and fourthly, Nature that
neither create nor is created. Eriugena goes into considerable details elaborating each of these
divisions using Christian, Augustinian and especially Neoplatonic concepts to formulate his
By this, Eriugena meant God, who is the cause of all things but does no himself need to be
caused. He brought all creatures into existence out of nothing (ex-nihilo). Following this
none of the attributes we derive from objects in our experience apply in any proper sense to
God, who possesses all the perfections in his infinity. To make some sure that not even the
likely attributes of wisdom and truth are ascribed to God without qualification; Eriugena adds
the term “super” t them. We thus, would say about God he is “super-wisdom” and “super-
Aristotle’s predicates to categories applies to God, for these predicates assume some for
substance –as for example, “quantity” implies dimension – but God does not exist in a
definable place. Eriugena discusses several issues along Augustinian lines, such as God’s
nature and the notion of creation out of nothing. But as he pursues the subject of the relation
between God and creatures, his Neoplatonism seems to become dominant and it is difficult to
avoid the conclusion that, for Eriugena there no sharp distinction between God and creatures.
“When we hear that God made all things, says Eriugena, “we should understand nothing else
but God is in all things”. This follows because only God “truly is” and therefore whatever is
in anything is God.
This division refers the divine forms which become the prototypes of all created things. They
are created and does not mean according to Eriugena that, they come to be at some point in
time. He has in mind a logical and not a chronological sequence. In God, there is the full
knowledge of everything, including the primordial causes of all things. These primordial
causes are the divine forms and the prototypes of things, and they create in the sense that, all
creatures “participate” in them. For example, human wisdom participate in the “super
wisdom” of God. Though he uses the word “creation” her, his Neoplatonism once again
dominates, particularly since creation for Eriugena for Eriugena does not occur in time but is
This is the world of things as we experience it. Technically, it refers to the collective external
effects of the primordial causes. These effect whether incorporeal (such as Angels or
Intelligence) or corporeal (such as people and things) are “participation” in the divine forms.
Eriugena emphasizes that these things – this full range of hierarchy of beings contain God as
their essence, even though specific things give the impression of being individual. He
compares this apparent plurality of things to the main varied reflections of light upon the
In the created world, each individual is real by virtue of the primordial causes, which is in
God’s mind. But God is, if anything, a unity, all to speak of Forms, prototypes, and
archetypes in his mind is to speak metaphysically, since these al constitute a unity for this
reason, the world is also a unity as the peacocks feathers and there is also more
comprehensive unity between the world and God, since God is in everything.
For Eriugena then, the divine Forms stand midway between God and creatures, as though
they could lead “up” towards God and “down” towards externalized forms. But in the end,
his Neoplatonism leads to erase the space between the “forms” and God and creatures, fusing
This division refers to God again, this time as the goal or end (purpose) of the created order.
As all things proceed from God, they also all returns to God. Using Aristotle’s metaphor,
Eriugena compares God to a beloved who, without moving, attracts the lover. Whatever starts
from a principle returns again to this same principle, and in this way, the universal cause
draws to itself the multitude of things that have risen from it. With this return with God
(Russell, 37).
CONCLUSION
entangled John Scotus Eriugena, it is imperative to deduce that, fides ex ratio dominates this
epoch. In a perfect simulacrum to the fore assertion Battista Mondin in his Magnus Opus
establishes his unequivocal affirmation that “the Middle Ages marks the triumph of the
Christian faith; it is the epoch in which the church converted all Europe to Christ’s faith. For
this reason in which faith finally play down reason and subordinated philosophy to be the
handmaid of theology, the medieval period is justly called the “replica christiana” (Republic
Moreover, due to the manipulations of faith over reason as exemplified by thinkers within
this era, most scholars hastily regard the system if thought within this philosophical epoch as
“Christian Philosophical era”, however the authorities philosophers such as Brunschwis and
Heidegger inter-alia counter claimed that, to regard this era as Christian philosophy would
Finally, what is paramount is really not the conation regarding the uniqueness of
Christian/medieval philosophy as a concept, but the ontological culture and ambience of the
season that matters. By approbation, among the host of scholars within this season, we may
equally throw weight in appraising that, both John Scotus Eriugena and his contemporaries
employed faith and reason but places faith higher than reason in proving the existence of God
and accounting for the creation. Taken as such, John Scotus Eriugena’s notion of Nature and
its fourfold division is thoroughly pantheistic and his subsequent magnetic influence/stimulus