Metaphysics and Ineffable

Foreword

In the terrain of contemporary philosophy, we can certainly sense a siloing of communities: the Anglophone tradition might dialogue with the phenomenological and structuralist concerns of the Continent, but there are few direct interactions with non-Western traditions. The gap between what is often understood as Western and Eastern philosophies is inadequately addressed by practical philosophers; instead, philologists and specialists in Sanskrit, East Asian, and Tibetan traditions might produce voluminous work on diverse topics, but engagement from the Western side is lacking.

Emile Alexandrov has written this monograph, which attempts to build an arch over these chasms, engaging with a vast array of different philosophers throughout the ages, with scholarly rigour and philosophical passion. The present volume is a distinct and bold exercise in metaphysics; it is moreover one that refuses to be bound by the conventional delimitations of discipline or geography. This fact alone makes the book a kind of challenge to how present-day philosophers approach “Eastern” thinkers, as Alexandrov affirms and grapples with them in the same manner as he does the Western.

Alexandrov’s thesis involves “Metaphysics and Ineffable” – note, not “the ineffable” (sans the definite article). As he notes, “We refrain from attributing ineffable to any particular entity or employing it as a descriptive modifier. Rather, when we ‘invoke ineffable’, we point to a radical discontinuity beyond the threshold of the discursive.” We are therefore to utilise ineffable as both a methodological tool and as a destination. We are invited to recall a time when the “love of the idea” was not a mere abstract intellectual game of sorts, but a transformative practice incorporating discursive reasoning with the non-discursive aspects of meditation and ritual. We are guided through Graeco–Latin and Graeco–Arabic traditions through to Buddhist and Daoist thought. Needless to say, the scope of the present project is ambitious, but philosophy does not advance without bold new discussions.

While works such as Thomas McEvilley’s The Shape of Ancient Thought and Richard Seaford’s The Origins of Philosophy in Ancient Greece and Ancient India offer a challenging but intriguing exercise in cross cultural philosophical synthesis, Alexandrov significantly adjusts the trajectory by integrating post Hellenic thinkers and East Asian developments into a cohesive framework. Again, this is bold, but he makes a unique and defensible claim: the concept of the “Millennial Turn,” a historiographical and philosophical pivot which the author identifies as having occurred around the year 1000 CE. It is shown that prior to this turn in history, in metaphysics in both the East and West, discursive thought (logical reasoning, syllogism, and debate) coexisted with and were even directed towards non-discursive realms of transcendental insight and what we would call “spiritual practice.” Around the end of the first millennium, a divergence formed, when the integrated whole stemming from the ancient world gave way to an interest in absolute certitude, stemming from metaphysics’ exhaustion or fatigue. The resulting bifurcation has affected philosophy ever since. The concept of the “Millennial Turn” offers us a new perspective and perhaps route back to where we started many centuries ago. The revival – or better yet, the retrieval – of “ineffable” is the remedy offered.

If Alexandrov succeeds in his endeavour, then philosophy will acquire a new perspective that ideally will advance us towards a position in which Western authors are not functionally separated from those in the East, but instead we start to think more of human thought as an integrated whole regardless of the geographic origins of the thinkers in question. Such a movement is perhaps inevitable right now in history. Only two or three decades ago printed books and papers were replaced with much more accessible digital formats, leading the whole world to suddenly be able to communicate regularly. Now, at the dawn of the AI age, language barriers will evaporate. Primary sources that were largely restricted to those few with the rare competencies will be available to anyone in any language. The linguistic and geographical boundaries that separated the West from the rest of the world are being dissolved. Alexandrov’s book – I hope – will facilitate a movement towards a more globally integrated approach to practical philosophy during a time when humanity is communicating in ways that only a few years ago seemed impossible.

Max Planck Institute for the History of Science Jeffrey Kotyk

15 February 2026

Berlin, Germany

Preface

The ideas in this work have undergone a long period of gestation, dating back to the years preceding commencement of the author’s postgraduate studies. Following a concentrated apprenticeship in German and Graeco–Arabic thought, the focus on the latter intensified, even as the horizon widened beyond European philosophy to its Buddhist and Daoist counterparts. Although narrower in scope, the author’s earlier work, which rethought Neoplatonic metaphysics under the sign of an ‘Other Platonist Beginning’, already foreshadowed the present project. In fact, much of what follows continues that earlier effort, though the window now opens beyond Graeco–Arabic materials to encompass major Eastern schools of thought, foremost among them Buddhism and Daoism. In that sense, this book is the first instalment of the Other Platonist Beginning promised at the close of the author’s previous work, for Platonism remains its chief influence. Even so, at its centre stands a dialogue between Eastern and Western metaphysics, which situates it within an integrative philosophical programme traceable to Schopenhauer, among the earliest to construe Platonism through Vedic/Buddhist and Kantian frames; with Kantianism likewise a principal plank of the present project.

Given the breadth of this work, which spans a historical arc across multiple philosophical, doctrinal, cultural, and linguistic traditions, we have relied on primary sources wherever possible. Since critical editions were not always available, we have, in most cases, listed the corresponding primary texts. Citations of these works are given in abbreviated form, with full publication details provided in the complete bibliography for the reader’s reference. English renderings are sought wherever possible; where these are lacking, for example, in portions of Abélard’s Latin that remain untranslated, recourse is made to the originals. To balance scholarly rigour with accessibility, we include a symbol-key table at the outset to clarify the logical symbols used. In addition, we have included a historical appendix that gathers the thinkers surrounding what we term the ‘Millennial Turn’ (950–1250) into a transitional band, to aid navigation and to situate all figures within the proposed historical metaphysics. Furthermore, the emphasis on the historical dimension inherent in metaphysics leads us to situate these figures and their ideas within key events, epochs, and related developments, thereby providing a consistent mapping of their historical context.

Consequently, disparate traditions are convened within a single linguistic medium, English, under the rubric of history, with virtually no recourse to secondary sources. Accordingly, the work is not, strictly speaking, presented as an academic monograph. The book stands chiefly upon primary materials even as it advances its ideas beyond them; though not a conventional piece of academic scholarship, it is composed with a scholar’s care for method, precision, and accuracy. On a final note, although not a prerequisite, a broad command of the history of philosophy will serve readers well, as the scope of the unifying schema attempted here is far from standard practice in contemporary philosophy. This bears on the work’s principal aim, that is, to advance an all-inclusive metaphysics that places a multitude of traditions on an equal footing. Metaphysics is here treated as a universal discipline of thought, bounded by neither language nor culture, nor by political, religious, or historical contingencies. In this respect, we are greatly aided by the technological availability of texts and by the labours of scholars, editors and translators. All those who steward manuscripts and work with ideas are to benefit from expansive approaches, such as the one presented here. Chiefly, however, it is metaphysics itself that stands to accrue the results of our labour; and this book aims to make that evident, if not through its central theses, then at least by bringing the traditions it treats into sustained dialogue. Indeed, we remain convinced that it is through such dialogue that we do justice to metaphysics and to the breadth of ideas handed down to the present.

Acknowledgements

Far more people have contributed to this work than can be fully acknowledged here, but I nonetheless wish to place my gratitude in ink. First and foremost, I am indebted to my former colleagues at the University of Tyumen (UTMN) for their support and collegiality as I wrote while teaching. Their confidence in my ideas, and the conversations and collaborations they encouraged, have been indispensable. Foremost among them are Vladimir Orlov, Peter Lešnik, Kimberly McCabe, Ashraf Ismail, Rafael Contreras Luna and Ahmed Elghandour, who have become not only colleagues but close friends. I am especially grateful to the late Andrey Scherbenok, who afforded me the opportunity to test these ideas in the classroom while ensuring I had sufficient time for my own research. I owe an immeasurable debt to my students, whose sustained interest in my lectures, seminars, and extra-curricular activities inspired me to teach and research with renewed purpose. Many of the ideas developed in this work grew directly out of their questions, discussions, and inquiries, as well as their diligent and disciplined engagement with the philosophies we explored in class. Beyond UTMN, I have benefited from the insights and encouragement of many colleagues. Among them, Denis Maslov, Alexander O’Neill, Dominick Scarangello, Steve Stakland and Jeffrey Kotyk deserve particular acknowledgement for the inspiration their work and conversations have provided. I am honoured by the generous support of Professor Ching Keng of National Taiwan University during my time in Taipei, especially his invitation to participate in academic activities at NTU, which proved immensely fruitful in shaping my thinking. I am likewise honoured by Professor Shigeki Moro of Waseda University for inviting me in the same spirit of collegial friendship and collaboration. Finally, as ever, I remain indebted to my mother for her unwavering support in every part of my life; this work is but one expression of her enduring care and encouragement.

Chronology of Thinkers

The principal figures cited in the text are arranged chronologically in three streams, centred on the Millennial Turn (950–1250) as a transitional band. Around this period, we distinguish three streams: first, the Greek, including Roman, Syrian, and Phoenician thinkers; second, the Graeco–Arabic and Graeco–Latin, which together form a Graeco–Arabic–Latin bridge; and third, the Eastern, chiefly Chinese and Japanese, including Indian and Tibetan thinkers. In the earlier ‘Ancient’ period (well before the Millennial Turn) and the later ‘Modern’ period (well after it), we do not maintain this tripartite division, and the figures listed there are not grouped chronologically or according to the metaphysical–historical dynamics of the Millennial Turn.

Symbol Keys

Introduction

This work is guided by a singular premise and purpose. The first, in its most concentrated form, is that metaphysics is the love of the idea. The second, emerging naturally from the former to engineer this entire project into being, is the work’s effort to retrieve a systematic metaphysics from within classical thought forms. Beyond this, we make no claims, present no arguments, and hold no positions. On the contrary, this work takes a principled stance against ‘argumentation’ itself, largely avoiding the use of the term ‘argument’ throughout its pages. As such, the work stands neither as a call to action nor as an attempt to construct a philosophical system but as a response to the existing call of metaphysics, a resonant answer to the persistent longing for transcendence. Metaphysics is a curve ball in the present endeavour; we catch the proverbial historical boomerang and attempt to swing back towards transcendence pure and simple, and even further, a double transcendence beyond being, that is, towards a radical discontinuity: ineffable. The broader mechanics of these assertions we will briefly outline here in the introduction, but the rest we leave for the main body of work.

The present work advances with the conviction that metaphysics has evolved beyond its original foundation – that it is no longer what it once was in the age of the ‘ancients’, by whom we mean Plato, Laozi, Gautama, and others. At the same time, we maintain that the decisive ‘moment’ in its departure from those ancient configurations did not occur until much later, roughly between 950 and 1250 AD: a period we designate, as a metaphysical concept of history, the ‘Millennial Turn’, the principal temporal anchor emerging from our sustained engagement with multiple systems of thought. To define this metaphysical concept of history concisely, it describes a reorientation from ‘transcendence over immanence’ to a ‘transcendence of (and within) immanence’. Transcendence (Latin transcendere: trans- ‘across/beyond’ with scandere ‘to climb’) once named a ‘beyond’ conceived as above the world and surpassing it; with the Turn, that ‘beyond’ is increasingly displaced into the depth of being as becoming itself. In the older arrangement, the transcendent stood over the immanent as a king over his kingdom, above it, ruling it, and securing its order from without. By the Turn, the king comes to dwell within the very realm he governs. Transcendence is no longer a hovering sovereign, but an excess that arises from and inhabits the immanent configuration it once exceeded.

Immanence (Latin immanēre: in- ‘in’ with manēre ‘to remain, dwell’) names precisely this ‘staying-within’; the contemplative, corporeal, and historical domain in which transcendence is now sublimated into an interior surplus. Part and parcel of this shift is the ‘Turn from Ineffable’ that we will discuss shortly. What was once unknowable becomes knowable, refigured as the consummation of thinking – something that can be approached, mediated, and articulated through both being and becoming. In what follows, we trace this shift from three primary vantage points: first, the Greek and broader Hellenic philosophical trajectory; second, the Arabic–Latin reception of this Graeco-Hellenic legacy; and third, East Asian Buddhist and Daoist programmes. By ‘East’ we refer principally to Chinese and Japanese sources, supplemented by significant recourse to Tibetan and Indian ideas; by ‘Hellenic’ we include developments extending beyond classical Greece into Late Antique and Medieval receptions; by ‘Arabic’ we refer to the classical falsafa of the early Islamic Golden Age (800–1200 AD), which through movements not limited to translation, served as a crucial intermediary for the transmission and transformation of Greek philosophy into the Latin scholastic world.

We add one further caveat. When we employ the terms ‘metaphysics’ and ‘philosophy’ in relation to Eastern materials, we do so heuristically. These traditions did not conceive of ‘philosophy’ in the Graeco–Arabic–Latin sense, nor did they possess a premodern category equivalent to ‘metaphysics’. The now-standard Chinese term xingershangxue, like its Japanese counterpart keijijogaku, is a modern construct, systematised in the Meiji period by Inoue Tetsujirō on the basis of a classical phrase, rather than an indigenous label for earlier doctrinal or contemplative designs. With that said, our work here is not confined to these vantage points. Where we deem it more than merely illustrative, we also draw on literary sources, especially poetic ones, as well as select Vedic and contemporary thought forms from German, American, and Russian sources, among others. Such breadth of appropriation is deliberate. It bespeaks our conviction that the classical metaphysical vision, with its all-encompassing and holistic scope, has been almost entirely effaced from contemporary cognisance; thus betraying, above all, a historical amnesia to which modern thought (regrettably in our view), remains subject.

Accordingly, this work aims to resolutely expand the horizon of metaphysics by embracing a diverse spectrum of philosophical traditions. The goal is not merely conversing with manifold systems, but to honour those programmes by reading them directly into the very outlines we construct in our metaphysics. We hold fast to the conviction that no idea, no system, nor system of thought ever arises in a vacuum, nor emerges ex nihilo. Thus, we seek to demonstrate that metaphysics stands as the primal investigation, the bedrock upon which all subsequent enquiries across varied traditions are founded. Metaphysics, to borrow Aristotle’s own phrase, is indeed the ‘first philosophy’. Naturally, from Aristotle to Aquinas, we discern a bold, tacit thread – a commitment to world-building that entails cosmic schemata, delineations of the divine, and even ritual practices oriented towards the transformation of both thinker and world. Parallel figures certainly are there in the Buddhist milieu, i.e. Fazang, Zhiyi, and Kūkai, who likewise advanced a contemplative endeavour, coupled with intuitive insight aimed at world-transformation. Enlightenment, in their view, was attained in consonance, indeed literally, with the principle that in saving oneself one saves all beings, so that the Dharma realised overflows in its all-pervading efficacy.

To wit, this brief introduction has already warranted provisional justifications, i.e. that metaphysics has undergone such a deep transformation as to be scarcely recognisable; that world-building metaphysics no longer survives; that the ritualism of classical systems has faded, and so forth. Such justification will recur throughout the ensuing chapters. At present, we confine ourselves to delineating certain salient features of the work here so as to clarify our ultimate design and the positions alluded to above. The present work divides into four distinct, albeit extensive, parts, each bearing its own purpose while contributing to the whole. While the work is fundamentally historical, encompassing, as noted, a vast spectrum of philosophies, our focus, anchored at the Millennial Turn, is narrowed to that pivotal juncture of Late Antiquity. The first part considers Late Antique metaphysics within the Graeco–Latin tradition, focusing on Iamblichus, Proclus, and Damascius, and passing on to Eriugena and Synesius, then proceeds through the Graeco–Arabic current in al-Kindī and al-Fārābī and their heirs, and finally turns to East Asian Buddhism, from Zhiyi and Fazang to, principally, the Japanese schools, with other Chinese thinkers in attendance. As the title in the Table of Contents suggests, we term this phase the ‘Towards Ineffable’. The reasoning behind this ‘towards’ will become clear as we progress, but for now, a brief overview is in order.