“The Union of Intellects as Creation in Eriugena’s Periphyseon”. This paper analyses Eriugena’s frequent use of a simile in his Periphyseon to illustrate the nature of the manifestation of divine nature. Just as God, causa omnium, manifests Himself in his effects, the human intellect, in order to express itself, manifests itself in certain forms and signs that make it possible for it to be understood by other intellects. Although the simile seeks to illustrate the paradox of theophany –the fact that God, while revealing Himself, remains hidden–, the analysis of the image demonstrates the importance of the figure of the other for both human intellect and divinity, since, dialectically, this other enables us, in a certain way–the only possible one–to recognize ourselves.

This paper analyses Eriugena’s frequent use of a simile in his Periphyseon to illustrate the nature of the manifestation of divine nature. Just as God, causa omnium, manifests Himself in his effects, the human intellect, in order to express itself, manifests itself in certain forms and signs that make it possible for it to be understood by other intellects. Although the simile seeks to illustrate the paradox of theophany – the fact that God, while revealing Himself, remains hidden –, the analysis of the image demonstrates the importance of the figure of the other for both human intellect and divinity, since, dialectically, this other enables us, in a certain way – the only possible one – to recognize ourselves.

“The Union of Intellects as Creation in Eriugena’s Periphyseon”. This paper analyses Eriugena’s frequent use of a simile in his Periphyseon to illustrate the nature of the manifestation of divine nature. Just as God, causa omnium, manifests Himself in his effects, the human intellect, in order to express itself, manifests itself in certain forms and signs that make it possible for it to be understood by other intellects. Although the simile seeks to illustrate the paradox of theophany –the fact that God, while revealing Himself, remains hidden–, the analysis of the image demonstrates the importance of the figure of the other for both human intellect and divinity, since, dialectically, this other enables us, in a certain way–the only possible one–to recognize ourselves.