A comparison between Avicenna and Eriugena according to their conceptions of the meaning of God’s negative attributes

According To Eriugena, it is not true to attribute a property to God in the sense that one does to the creatures; but they can be used beyond the sense in which they are used for the creatures. Because God, on the one hand, is the ultimate cause of the creatures -the attributes of creatures are ultimately from God- and, on the other hand, transcends them. Since Eriugena simultaneously negates and affirms the attributes about God, his theory can be called an apophatic-cataphatic theory in which, the negation of the attributes is because of God’s superiority to creatures. Surprisingly, it is also the case for Avicenna. That is, his theory can also be called an apophatic-cataphatic theory. Nevertheless, Avicenna’s view about the negation and affirmation of attributes is different from that of Eriugena. He contends that “necessity of existence” can be attributed to God positively while the other attributes are subject to either negation or correlation. According to Avicenna, it is not important for an attribute to be apparently negative/positive, because an apparently negative attribute can be in fact positive and vice versa. In this article, it will be argued that despite Eriugena's idea, Avicenna’s theory is in contrast with divine ineffability.