Din dili, din felsefesinin önemli problemlerinden biridir. Dil in felsefeye konu olmasının nedeni ise sınırlı bir yapıya sahip olan dilin sonsuz bir varlık olan Tanrı'yı ifade edip edemeyeceği sorunudur. Dil ile ilgili tüm sorunlara rağmen filozoflar ve teologlar Tanrı hakkında farklı şekillerde konuşmaktadırlar. Tanrı ile ilgili üç tür konuşma şekli vardır: Birincisi Tanrı'yı olumlu sıfatlarla niteleyen katafatik teoloji, ikincisi, analoji, üçüncüsü ise negatif ya da apofatik teolojidir. Felsefi ve teolojik gelenek içerisinde pozitif teoloji ve analoji fazlaca yaygındır. Oysa Tanrı gerçekten pozitif sıfatlarla ifade edilebilir mi? Ya da Tanrı'ya her hangi bir şeyi yüklem yapmak ne ölçüde doğrudur? Bu sorulara, karşıt bir tavır olarak negatif teolojiyi görmekteyiz. Bu teologlara göre zihin dünyamızın kuşatamadığı aşkın bir varlık olan Tanrı, sınırlı bir dil asla ifade edilemez. İnsan bilgisini somut objelere yaptığı yüklemler Tanrı'ya yapılamaz. Bu amaçla biz bu makalede negatif teolojiyi, Neo-Platoncu gelenek üzerinden ve daha çok Plotinus'un görüşlerini merkeze alarak incelemeye çalışacağız. Bunun için Plotinus'un öncüsü ve kaynağı olması bakımından önce Antik dönemden Platon'un görüşlerine yer vereceğiz. Daha sonra da Helenistik teoloji geleneğinden Philo'nun görüşlerini inceleyeceğiz. Çünkü Philo, hem negatif teolojinin ilk sistematik kuramcısı hem de Plotinus ile aynı felsefi geleneğe mensup bir düşünürdür. Dolayısıyla problemi hem felesfi hemde teolojik eksen üzerinde ele almaktadır. Çalışmamızın omurgasını Plotinus'un negatif teolojisi oluşturmaktadır. Bu bahiste düşünsel arka planını verdiğimiz Plotinus'un konuyu ele alışını inceleyip, felsefi ve teolojik açıdan değerlendireceğiz

God is the unique being who created the universe with his infinite power. God is unique because he must be absolute in all respects such that he can create the universe and be different from all things he creates. Conceptualization of God in this way plays a key role especially in the theistic idea of God. Therefore, God is the possessor of all perfections opposites of which cannot be conceived. When we conceptualize God in this way, we obligatorily face the problem of how to express him. This brings us to the point of relationship between language and God. Hence, the language of religion is one of the important problems of philosophy of religion. The reason why language is a subject of philosophy is the problem whether language, which has a limited structure, can express God, which is an infinite being. In spite of all problems related to language, philosophers and theologians talk about God in different ways. There are three ways of talking about God: The first one is the cataphatic theology that qualifies God with positive attributes; the second one is analogy; and the third one is the negative or the apophatic theology. Positive theology and analogy are quite common in the philosophical and theological tradition. However, can God be really expressed with positive attributes? Or to what extent is it correct to predicate anything to God? We see the negative theology as a reaction to such questions. According to these theologians, God, which is a transcendent being incapable of being encompassed by our intellectual world, can never be expressed by limited language. Predicates attributed to concrete objects by human knowledge cannot be predicated to God. In this article we will attempt to investigate negative theology over the Neo-Platonist tradition mostly by focusing on Plotinus’ views. In order to substantiate our subject, we will first deal with the views of Plato from the Antique period because he was Plotinus’ precursor and source. Afterwards, we will discuss the discourse of the Jewish thinker Philo of Alexandria from the tradition of Hellenistic theology, who, in our opinion, is the precursor of both the Neo-Platonic theological tradition and the negative theology. This is because Philo is the pioneer of Plotinus in this subject. In the final analysis, we will look into and evaluate Plotinus’ negative theology. The reason leading us to such a research is that philosophic and theological traditions intersect on negative theology. Many researchers looked into the idea of God of Plato, Philo and Plotinus; however, there is not much in Turkish philosophical literature regarding the way they express God. Therefore, we looked into the subject with a philosophical approach in a rational, systematic, extensive and consistent way. We first dealt with the historical background of the problem. In the second phase, we presented conceptual explanations and discussions. Finally, we critically analyzed the views of the relevant philosophers regarding the subject. Tanrı Hakkında Konuşa(ma)mak: Plotinus’da Negatif Teoloji 737 Turkish Studies International Periodical For the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic Volume 10/2 Winter 2015 While researching the subject, we referred to first-hand sources. Therefore, we used the original and authentic works of the philosophers. When necessary, secondary sources regarding the subject were included. Our primary sources are the following: PLATON. (1997). Phaidros, Trans. Hamdi Akverdi, MEB pub., İstanbul; PLATON. (1997). Timaios, Trans. Erol Güney-Lütfi Ay, MEB pub., İstanbul; PLATON. (2000). Devlet, Trans. Neval Akbıyık-Serdar Taşçı, Metropol pub., İstanbul; PHILO. (1958). De Calogo (On the Decalouge), Harvard University Press, Vol: VII; PHILO. (1958). De Posteritate Caini (On the Posterity and Exile of Chain), Harvard University Press, Vol: I; PHILO. (1958). De Somniis (On Dreams)1, Harvard University Press, Vol: V; PHILO. (1958). De Speciabilus Legibus (On Special Laws I), Harvard University Press, Vol: VII; PHILO. (1958). Quod Deus Immutabili sit (On The Unchangeableness of God), Harvard University Press, Vol: III; PHILO. (1960). Quod Omnis Probus (Every Good Man is Free), Harvard University Press, Vol: IX; PLOTINUS. (1984). Enneads, Vol: I-VII, Eng. Trans. A. H. Armstrong, Harvard University Press, CambridgeMassachusetts. As secondary sources, such sources are used as WITTGENSTEIN, Ludwig. (1985). Wittgenstein, Tractatus LogicoPhilosophicus, Trans. Oruç Aruoba, Bilim/Felsefe/Sanat pub., İstanbul; WOLFSON, Harry A. (1947). “The Knowability and Describability of God in Plato and Aristotle,” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, V. 56, (1947), p. 233-249; WOLFSON, Harry A. (1962) Philo: Foundation of Religious Philosophy in Judaism Christinaity and Islam, Vol: I-II, Harvard University Press, Cambridge-Masachusett; REÇBER, Mehmet Sait. (2010). “Plotinus: Tanrı’nın Birliği ve Basitliği Üzerine”, Ankara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 51:1 (2010), p. 59-78; PLANTINGA, Alvin (1980). Does God Have A Nature, Marquette University Press, Milwaukee; BUSSANICH, John. (2006). “Plotinus's Metaphysics of the One” The Cambridge Companion of Plotinus, ed. Lloyd P. Gerson, Cambrige Universiy Press, Cambridge; CARABINE, Deirdre. (1995). The Unknown God: Negative Theology in the Platonic Tradition: From Plato to Eriugena, Peeters Press, Leuvain; CORRIGAN, Kevin (2006). “Essence and Existence in the Enneads”, The Cambridge Companion of Plotinus, ed. Lloyd P. Gerson, Cambrige Universiy Press, Cambridge. Since negative theology deems language inadequate in expressing God, it sometimes includes expressions that may contradict with each other in its discourse regarding God. The way to understand and use negative theology is to change our language habits and to move language outside of its usual boundaries. Of course, it is evident that this will produce many problems. Methods and principles should be developed in this regard. This issue is outside of the scope of our work. Actually, we find it too assertive to view Plato as the father of negative theology. In our view, Philo plays a key role in that regard. We may see Philo as the precursor of apophatic language in theological tradition. However, Plotinus is the person who carried negative theology to its zenith in philosophical tradition. Plotinus generally seems consistent in his own system. However, there are also certain problems produced by negative theology. For instance, can God not really be explained in a positive language in its absolute sense? In our opinion, this is definitely not excluded. Both discourses or readings are each a 738 Hasan ÖZALP Turkish Studies International Periodical For the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic Volume 10/2 Winter 2015 method of expression. We see that God expresses himself with positive attributes, too, in holy scriptures such as the Torah, Gospel and Quran. Whether they believe or not, people draw many deductions from these positive descriptions. Therefore, positive attributes are not inadequate and meaningless in expressing God. In holy scriptures, too, we encounter examples of negative theology. However, this approach does not constitute a significant amount when compared to positive attributes. On the other hand, negative theology or expressions reminiscent of negative theology are frequently encountered among philosophers and thinkers with more mystical tendencies. Hence, it is a more appropriate approach to view negative theology as a method that people who ponder God much and who possess inner knowledge apply to, instead of viewing it as philosophical rather religious. Another problem that is produced by negative theology is agnostic associations. It appears that its use of both positive attributes and negative qualities about God evolves negative theology into agnosticism. This is because this situation is a sign of obscurity regarding God. In our opinion, this situation does not present negative theology as agnosticism. This is because agnosticism is lack of evidence regarding God. However, negative theology definitely accepts the existence of God. The problem of negative theology with God is not lack of evidence but lack of language. Plotinus made God perfect by uniting in God singularity which is an alternative to plurality and goodness which is an alternative to evil, which he expresses as One. So, do all these protect God from being the source of evils occurring in the world of plurality? In our opinion, the problem of evil is a subject that should be examined in Plotinus. In conclusion, we see that it is difficult for the human being to express the theistic absolute God in natural language. The concerns of the philosophers who are the subject of our research are well-placed. This is because although God is an eternal and infinite being, the human language is finite and limited