Emanation (philosophy)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Emanation (from Latin emanatio "outflow", "outflow") is a term used in philosophy and religious studies . In metaphysical and cosmological models, it describes the “emergence” of something from its origin, which produces it from itself. It is metaphorically linked to the idea of ​​water flowing out of a source or the emission of light from a light source. Models that use the concept of emanation to explain the world by tracing the existence of things back to emanation from a metaphysical source are called emanatic (emanationism or emanaticism). The systems with emanatic world models include above all Neo-Platonism and the philosophical and religious teachings influenced by it.

The term “emanation” is used not only for what came out, but also for what came out. In this sense, one says, for example, that the (emanatistically interpreted) creation or individual beings are emanations of the Creator God.

The ancient Greek term rendered with “emanation” is ἀπόρροια apórrhoia or ἀπορροή aporrhoḗ (discharge). In addition, the terms προβολή probolḗ ( producing ) and πρόοδος pró [h] odos (coming out) were also used in ancient Greek literature .

Basics of emanatic world views


The starting point is a central problem of ancient philosophy: the question of the relationship between unity and plurality and the causality that determines this relationship. Emanation models try to grasp the entire reality accessible to humans as an ordered system (world order). The criterion for classifying things in the system is the greater or lesser extent of the presence of the feature “unity” or the opposite feature “plurality”. "Unity" means that something is general, undifferentiated and comprehensive, with "multiplicity" is meant the differentiated and complex as well as the special and the individual. All material and immaterial things get their place in the world order depending on how uniform or diverse they are.

In the ontology (doctrine of being) of the emanatic systems, the overall reality is structured hierarchically . It consists of a certain number of levels ( hypostases ). The top level is characterized by the greatest possible unity (undifferentiation) and is therefore often called “ the one ”. Differentiation increases from top to bottom. At the lowest, most differentiated level, the development of the particularity reaches its maximum. It shows in the highly different individual nature of the individual things. This area is characterized by the greatest possible abundance of individual features and combinations of features. This gives the lowest level a high degree of diversity, but also of dispersion and isolation of the objects, each of which stands for itself and appears as a separate reality.

In the hierarchical order, the more general, more comprehensive and more uniform (for example a genus) always stands above the more specific, more isolated and more complex (for example a single sensory object). The less differentiated has a higher ontological rank. This arises from two basic assumptions characteristic of emanatic models. The first is that the general is not just a mental construct formed by the human mind through abstraction and used for communication, but an objective metaphysical reality. This view is referred to as “strong realism” on the universals question . The second basic assumption states that the process of abstraction, which leads from the relatively complex particular to the relatively simple general, progresses ontologically from the caused to the cause. In doing so, one arrives at something that has been effected and is therefore subordinate to something that is effected and thus superordinate. The relatively undifferentiated completely encompasses the relatively differentiated that is assigned to it, whereas the differentiated forms only a part or aspect of the undifferentiated, to which it belongs as a special case or particular form of appearance. Thus, the particular is always poor in comparison with the general. The universal and the simple in no way need the particular for its existence, while conversely, the existence of the particular presupposes that of the universal. Hence the simpler, which includes the more complex, is the superior. Expressed in religious language, the differentiated is always less divine than the undifferentiated. This results in a sharp contrast between the philosophy of emanation and pantheism , which declares God and the world to be absolutely identical.

The concept of emanation

The flow of multiplicity

The term emanation is used to more closely characterize the causal relationship between the causative unity and the caused multiplicity. The differentiated is only the unfolding of something that is completely contained in the undifferentiated in an, as it were, folded-in way. If this unfolding is understood as a temporal process or is at least described as such, one can speak of an emergence or, metaphorically, of an outflow ("emanating"). Through this "outflow", a multitude of properties emerge that can be perceived in the realm of multiplicity. Viewed in this way, the realm of multiplicity appears as the world of abundance. Since this fullness has no other origin than the unity, it must already be present in this completely, even if in an undifferentiated, unified way. Thus the unity turns out to be the actual fullness, while the individual things can only have parts or aspects of this fullness. Everything that has gone forth is necessarily less than its source. Seen in this way, every emergence of the particular from the general is a production of something that is relatively inferior if one compares what has emerged with the source.

The representatives of emanation models attach great importance to the statement that although emanation means that something is received from the superordinate level at the respective subordinate level, this in no way diminishes the source. At the higher level nothing changes in emanation. The “outflow” should not be understood in such a way that the higher level releases something downwards, which it then lacks as a result. In this respect there is no analogy to a flowing liquid, but only to the light emission (if one assumes that a light source such as the sun does not suffer any loss in its emission).

The explanation of the evil

If one ascribes the existence of individual things to emanation and thus interprets the differentiation and isolation as impoverishment, this results in an explanation for the origin of the lack that is typical of emanatic systems (in more judgmental terminology: evil or evil). These systems value the world order positively, they declare it either in its entirety or at least with regard to the ontologically higher levels as good. The original one is regarded as perfect, as the absolutely good (viewed from a human perspective; in itself it is indeterminate). Since everything in the emanation models ultimately comes from the One, the things that have emerged directly or indirectly from it can only have properties that also come from this source and are therefore good. The evils are therefore not real properties of things, but defects resulting from the absence of certain good properties. For example, ethically reprehensible acts are a result of ignorance, and ignorance is a lack of knowledge. Such deficiencies must inevitably result from the course of the emanation process, since this is a process of impoverishment that ends where the distance to the absolutely good is the greatest possible. That is where the evil is located. The closer something is to the one, the “better” it is, that is, more like something that is absolutely good.

Theistic systems are a special case . They identify the original unity from which everything emerged with an absolutely perfect God who created and controls the world willingly. With this they are faced with the problem of theodicy (explanation of evil). Here the emanatic interpretation of the evil offers approaches for proposed solutions; the evil appears as a necessary consequence of a process of emanation, which is the prerequisite for multiplicity, and thus also for humans, to exist at all.

Emanation and Creation

The Neoplatonic emanation model makes statements about the ontological order of stages, not about a concrete process of creation or the emergence of the world in time. The Neoplatonists considered the emanation to be timeless or - to put it in a temporal sense - an everlasting event. Although Plato tells a myth in his dialogue Timaeus that depicts the creation of the world as a completed process, the majority of ancient interpreters were of the opinion that he had only done this for didactic reasons for the purpose of illustration and that in reality he had held the world for ever. This understanding of Plato's teaching is likely to be historically correct.

For philosophers who think emanatistically, whose religions teach that God created the world in a single act at a certain time, the question arose as to how far their concept of emanation is compatible with their religious worldview. They have solved or circumvented this problem in different ways. In dealing with such delicate questions, the fact that emanatic teachings could be regarded as a deviation from revealed faith and thus as a punishable heresy also played a role .

Another aspect of the tension between emanation and creation is that the relationship of a creature created “ out of nothing ” or “out of nothing” to its creator seems to be of a different kind than the relationship of something that has arisen to the entity from which it arose is. In some emanation models, the distance between what is derived and its origin appears to be comparatively small, because what has emerged necessarily has a "share" in the essence of its source (idea of participation ) and is more or less similar to it as an image. This can mean that the human soul is inherently capable of ascending to the sphere of deity, since there is something divine in it that it has received through emanation. The idea of ​​the order of degrees can also help to reduce the contrast between the creator and what has been produced, since the degrees have a mediating function between unity and plurality or, in theistic terminology, between the creator and his earthly creatures. In models of creation out of nothing, on the other hand, the gap between the creator on the one hand and everything created on the other is often emphasized.

In addition, in models of emanation, the existence of the world often appears as a necessity, since what is producing naturally "overflows" because of its overabundance, while in theistic models of creation creation is represented as the result of a certain divine act of will.

In addition, in emanation models, two-way communication between the (highest) deity, the ultimate source of emanation, and individual emanated beings is considered impossible. It is believed that the highest authority would be unworthy of dealing with beings who are less perfect than they are. This notion collides with revealed religious teachings that assume an interaction between God and man.




Even in the declaration of nature by pre-Socratic thinkers ( Empedocles , Democritus ) there is talk of runoff. This does not mean emanation in the later common philosophical sense, but rather a flow of matter particles. All things subject to change are constantly draining. Every influencing of one changeable object by another is interpreted as a material outflow from influencing to influencing. Perceptual doctrines such as those of Empedocles and Democritus are about a material basis of perception over a distance (seeing, hearing, smelling). Such sensory perception is traced back to a hypothetical flow of particles from the object of perception to the perceiver. For example, seeing is based on the fact that the particles emanating from the visible object penetrate into the eye of the perceiver.


The term “outflow” only got a metaphysical meaning in the Gnosis , a religious movement of the Roman Empire . The emanation was apparently a main element of Gnostic thinking from the beginning and was metaphorically connected above all to the radiation of light. The Gnostics differentiated between the Creator God ( Demiurge ), whom they considered an ethically questionable person, and the good "foreign" God, who is in no way involved in creation, but intervenes from outside as a savior and enters into a relationship with humans. A major difficulty in this model is that the alien god actually has nothing to do with the demiurge's creation; there is nothing that connects him to her. Hence the question arises as to how contact is possible between him and the world created by the demiurge. According to Gnostic teaching, the alien god, despite his alien nature, is able to exercise his influence in creation. This influence is explained as an emanation. Something radiates from the alien God, which is an expression of his being, like light shines into creation and is recognizable for people. With this a bridge has been built between the alien God and creation, which makes the redemption sought by the Gnostics, the liberation from the world of the demiurge, appear possible.

The Gnostics placed the different kinds of beings they accepted, both pure spirits and human souls, on different levels of a hierarchical order created by emanation. The sensually perceptible world was only valid as the result of emanation in terms of its substance; The Gnostics understood their design by the Demiurge as creation. They considered the work of creation of the demiurge to be a failure or a fruit of his malevolence, in any case something inferior to the products of emanation.


For Plato , the term does not appear the Emanierens illustrative of developing or ontological dependence, but already his pupil speaks Speusippos of existing things from coming forth nature of the One. In the period of Middle Platonism , which began in the 1st century BC Beginning in the 3rd century BC and ending in the 3rd century, the Platonists avoided applying the outflow concept to central areas of their philosophy. Only Plotinus († 270), the founder of Neoplatonism, took up the idea of ​​emanation. However, he made only sparse use of words expressing an outflow. He was bothered by the risk of misunderstandings when transferring the figurative expression "outflow" to metaphysical conditions. Because of this problem, he added “as it were” restrictively. Plotinus gave the Neoplatonic model the basic hierarchical structure that it retained in the period that followed. At the top he placed the absolutely undifferentiated one from which the nous (spirit, intellect ) emerges (emanates), which in turn lets the world soul emerge from itself . The emergence is not meant in time, but only in a figurative sense, because nous and world soul belong to the eternal spiritual ( intelligible ) world. Under the intelligible cosmos is the world of the sensually perceptible, which is produced and animated by the world soul.

In later Neoplatonism, Plotin's model of emanation was more differentiated; the Neo-Platonists inserted a number of intermediate stages between the one and the lowest realm of the spiritual world. They used to avoid expressions such as "outflow" when describing the derivation relationships and preferred the term "emergence" (Greek πρόοδος pró [h] odos ). The term “emanation”, which is commonly used in research literature and is based on the idea of ​​outflow, is therefore imprecise as a term for the emergence in the models of the late ancient Neo-Platonists.

In Neoplatonism, the coming forth is understood as one of the elements of a triad (triad), which consists of persistence, coming forward and return. In relation to the nous, it is about the persistence of the spirit in itself, its emergence into multiplicity and its return to its unity. These are neither changes of location nor successive phases, but the opposing movements of advancing and returning occur simultaneously and the pause does not experience any change. The three elements are mutually dependent, they make up the self-reflection of the mind. None of them can be isolated.

The late antique Neo-Platonist Proklos worked out the concept of the Triassic systematically and made it the basis of his ontological and cosmological model. He teaches that everything that has gone forth turns back to its origin. In this system, the end point of the decline coincides with the starting point of the emergence, so the three elements of the triad form - figuratively speaking - moments of circular activity. This gives reality a dynamic structure. The return does not undo the result, it does not cancel it. The proceeding causes the being of the proceeding. Return does not lead to the loss of this being, but is turning back to its cause. As such it connects cause and caused. It gives what has been caused its goodness, because when it turns back, what has been caused turns to something that is more perfect than itself, and directs its striving towards this. Thereby it attains for itself the specific perfection that belongs to it.

Bible and Church Fathers

The term emanation in a figurative philosophical and theological sense does not appear in the New Testament , in the Old Testament only in one place, in the Book of Wisdom , where - probably under Platonic influence - wisdom is referred to as the outflow of the glory of the Almighty .

In the ancient Christian large church, the term emanation initially served occasionally as a means to illustrate a hierarchy within the Trinity . Some theologians presented Christ or the Holy Spirit as an emanation from God the Father, which meant submission to them. But this understanding of the Trinity could not prevail. As early as the 3rd century, Origen spoke out against the designation of Christ as the emanation of the Father. The influential church father Athanasios († 373) fought the christological use of the idea of ​​emanation, which was also rejected by the Arians and was subject to general condemnation. In the Greek-speaking east of the Roman Empire, the condemnation was more violent than in the Latin-speaking west, but the opponents of emanatic Christology also triumphed in the west. An exception among the church fathers of the 4th century was Gregory of Nyssa , who considered the expression "coming forth" to be permissible for the relationship of Christ to the Father, but only within the framework of the light metaphor.

While the idea of ​​emanation was definitely banned from the doctrine of the Trinity, it remained alive in the doctrine of creation. In the case of the highly respected, strongly Neoplatonic theologian Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita , the theologian Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita , the motif of emergence plays a central role in the interpretation of the relationship between creator and creation. The Church Father Augustine, on the other hand, one of the leading theological authorities in the West, consistently avoided the emanatic use of language in the doctrine of creation.

middle Ages

In the Middle Ages, Christian, Jewish and Muslim thinkers with a strong Neoplatonic orientation mainly used emanatic ideas for the philosophical interpretation of the doctrine of creation in their religions.


Christian authors who particularly emphasized the concept of emanation include Eriugena (9th century), Meister Eckhart († 1327/1328) and in the transition between the late Middle Ages and the early modern period the humanist Nikolaus von Kues († 1464). The famous scholar Albertus Magnus († 1280) also represented an emanatic doctrine. Even the influential theologian Thomas Aquinas , who was critical of Platonism, called the process of creation an emanation of all beings from the universal cause, albeit without connecting any further Neoplatonic connotations to it. The Liber de causis , the high medieval Latin translation of an early medieval Arabic script, contributed a lot to the spread of emanatic ideas of ancient origin in Christian Europe.


In the Islamic world, the Arabic expression fayḍ was used for emanation . Among the Muslim philosophers, al-Fārābī and Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna) emerged with emanatic models. Also, al-Kindi explained the creation emanatistisch. The " Brothers of Purity " represented a doctrine of emanation that was strongly oriented towards ancient Neo-Platonism. The idea of ​​emanation spread in philosophical circles, but also met with strong rejection. Ibn Rušd (Averroes) emphatically rejected the concept of emanation. The most famous opponent of emanation thinking was the theologian al-Ġazālī . Faḫr ad-Dīn ar-Rāzī argued against Avicenna's theory, Naṣīr ad-Dīn aṭ-Ṭūsī defended Avicenna's position against the criticism of ar-Rāzī.


Emanation plays an important role in the interpretation of creation by Neoplatonic Jewish philosophers such as Isaak Israeli and Solomon ibn Gabirol , in Ashkenazi Hasidism and in Kabbalah . Isaak Israeli and ibn Gabirol adopt the Neoplatonic idea of ​​a gradual emanation, which causes the world to be hierarchically structured into the corresponding levels of being. Under this concept, they assume that only the first and highest level of creation was directly brought about by God. With Isaac Israeli this uppermost level is the intellect, which has arisen through the connection of the first form created by God with the likewise created first (spiritual) matter. Ibn Gabirol also assigns this position and quality to the intellect; but he vacillates over the question of whether the emanation process emanates from God himself or from the created intellect. The remaining levels down to the lowest level, matter, have arisen, according to the opinion of the two thinkers, of the next higher level and thus have their origin only indirectly in God. Ibn Gabirol also accepts God's will as an intermediary between God and the intellect.

The partly Neoplatonic, partly Aristotelian philosopher Abraham bar Chija also represents an emanation model . According to his teaching, the light originally emanating from God - a metaphysical principle - is the factor that effects and guides the individual processes of creation. The Jewish Aristotelian Abraham ibn Daud also interprets creation as emanation, with only the highest level of emanation emanating directly from God. Also Maimonides uses a emanatistischen expression; he resorts to the metaphor of flowing out of a water source.

Modern times

The Protestant theosophist Jacob Böhme followed the Jewish Kabbalist Azriel von Gerona by speaking of the emanation of the world from the “original ground” of God, and thus inspired the work of William Blake .

Even modern philosophers have interpreted creation as an outflow of the created from God. Leibniz said that it was “absolutely clear” that God “incessantly produces the created substances in a kind of emanation, just as we produce our thoughts”. Leibniz did not consider this emanation to be naturally necessary. Schelling stated that there was a general consensus that the deity "is infinite communicability and effluent". There are necessarily two principles in the nature of God, "the flowing, expanding, self-giving being, and an equally eternal force of selfhood, of going back to oneself, of being-in-oneself". He emphasized the discontinuous character of the emergence from the absolute, which he understood as a “leap” or “breaking free”, and criticized the ontological basis of the Neoplatonic model of stages. In contrast to the Neo-Platonists, Schelling interpreted the process of development and decline historically.

Hegel takes up the ancient idea of ​​emanation. He expressly designates the real as emanation, but denies it its divine character; he excludes the pure immanence of the absolute in the world. The world is not an emanation of the deity, but only an emanation as part of the infinite division of the original transcendent unity, whereby this division paradoxically leaves the original unity undivided. The neo-Platonism triad of persistence, emergence and return plays an important role in Hegel's philosophy, which, following on from Proclus' doctrine, he understands as the structure of the concrete totality. Hegel starts from Proclus' understanding, according to which the trinity is not just a formal principle of structure, but ontological structure and dynamic identity.

The First Vatican Council condemned every kind of doctrine of emanation in the Dogmatic Constitution “Dei Filius” in 1870: “Whoever says that finite things - both physical and spiritual, or at least spiritual - have flowed out of divine substance, [...] the be occupied with the anathema . "



  1. On these Greek words see Heinrich Dörrie: Platonica Minora, Munich 1976, p. 70 note 1.
  2. Jens Halfwassen : Plotin and the Neo-Platonism , Munich 2004, pp. 32–43.
  3. For the classification of levels, see Jens Halfwassen: The climb to one , 2nd edition, Munich 2006, pp. 41–52.
  4. Jens Halfwassen: The rise to one, 2nd edition, Munich 2006, pp. 53–97.
  5. Jens Halfwassen: The rise to one, 2nd edition, Munich 2006, pp. 126–129 (cf. pp. 247–252 on solar metaphors); Heinrich Dörrie: Platonica Minora, Munich 1976, p. 84f.
  6. For an explanation of the bad in an emanatic philosophy see Werner Beierwaltes : Thinking of One , Frankfurt am Main 1985, pp. 182–192; Evangelia Varessis: Die Andersheit bei Plotin , Stuttgart 1996, pp. 294–301; Christian Schäfer: Unde malum, Würzburg 2002, pp. 51–193.
  7. Christian Schäfer examines an example of theodicy in a theistic emanation model: Unde malum, Würzburg 2002, pp. 380–472.
  8. Matthias Baltes : Dianoemata, Stuttgart 1999, pp 303-325.
  9. On the relationship between freedom and necessity in producing, see Werner Beierwaltes: The true self , Frankfurt am Main 2001, p. 96 and note 38; Jens Halfwassen: Plotin and the Neo-Platonism , Munich 2004, pp. 137–141; Klaus Kremer: The “why” of creation: “quia bonus” vel / et “quia voluit”? In: Kurt Flasch (Ed.): Parusia , Frankfurt am Main 1965, pp. 241–264.
  10. ^ Heinrich Dörrie: Platonica Minora, Munich 1976, pp. 71-73.
  11. Heinrich Dörrie: Platonica Minora, Munich 1976, pp. 78–81.
  12. Joseph Ratzinger: Emanation. In: Reallexikon für Antike und Christianentum, Volume 4, Stuttgart 1959, Sp. 1219–1228, here: 1219–1222; Willy Theiler : Demiurgos. In: Reallexikon für Antike und Christianentum , Volume 3, Stuttgart 1957, Sp. 694–711, here: 708f.
  13. Jens Halfwassen: The Rise to One , 2nd Edition, Munich 2006, p. 25.
  14. ^ Heinrich Dörrie: Platonica Minora, Munich 1976, pp. 83-85.
  15. Evangelia Varessis: Die Andersheit bei Plotin, Stuttgart 1996, pp. 188–192, 238–248, 256–264.
  16. ^ Heinrich Dörrie: Platonica Minora, Munich 1976, p. 85.
  17. Werner Beierwaltes: Proklos. Grundzüge seine Metaphysik, 2nd edition, Frankfurt am Main 1979, pp. 118-136, 158-164; Jens Halfwassen: Plotin and the Neo-Platonism, Munich 2004, pp. 90–92, 156–158; Jens Halfwassen: The rise to one, 2nd edition, Munich 2006, pp. 130-135.
  18. ^ Carlos Steel: Proclus on self-reflection and self-justification. In: Matthias Perkams, Rosa Maria Piccione (Ed.): Proklos. Method, Seelenlehre, Metaphysik, Leiden 2006, pp. 230–255, here: 234–236.
  19. On the influence of Greek philosophy see Erich Zenger (ed.): Stuttgarter Altes Testament, 2nd edition, Stuttgart 2004, pp. 1301f .; see. Günther Lorenz: Emanation. I. Religious history. In: Religion in Past and Present , 4th edition, Volume 2, Tübingen 1999, Sp. 1243.
  20. Book of Wisdom 7:25. See Chrysostome Larcher: Le livre de la Sagesse ou la Sagesse de Salomon, Vol. 2, Paris 1984, pp. 498-500.
  21. ^ Heinrich Dörrie: Platonica Minora, Munich 1976, p. 85f .; Joseph Ratzinger offers numerous examples: Emanation. In: Reallexikon für Antike und Christianentum, Volume 4, Stuttgart 1959, Sp. 1219–1228, here: 1222–1225.
  22. Marguerite Harl: A propos d'un passage du Contre Eunome de Grégoire de Nysse: ἀπόρροια et les titres du Christ en théologie trinitaire. In: Marguerite Harl: Le déchiffrement du sens, Paris 1993, pp. 281-290.
  23. Klaus Kremer: The Neoplatonic Philosophy of Being and its Effect on Thomas Aquinas, Leiden 1971, pp. 321-324; Christian Schäfer: Μονή, πρόοδος and ἐπιστροφή in the philosophy of Proclus and the Areopagite Dionysius. In: Matthias Perkams, Rosa Maria Piccione (Ed.): Proklos. Method, Seelenlehre , Metaphysik, Leiden 2006, pp. 340–362.
  24. Joseph Ratzinger: Emanation . In: Reallexikon für Antike und Christianentum, Volume 4, Stuttgart 1959, Sp. 1219–1228, here: 1226f.
  25. See Werner Beierwaltes: Thinking of One , Frankfurt am Main 1985, pp. 355–363.
  26. Werner Beierwaltes: Platonism and Idealism, 2nd edition, Frankfurt am Main 2004, pp. 55–58, 63.
  27. On Albert's position, see Alain de Libera: Albert le Grand et la philosophie, Paris 1990, pp. 117–147.
  28. Thomas Aquinas: Summa theologiae pars 1 quaestio 45 articulus 1.
  29. ^ Therese-Anne Druart: Al-Fārābī, Emanation, and Metaphysics. In: Parviz Morewedge (ed.): Neoplatonism and Islamic Thought, Albany 1992, pp. 127-148.
  30. Jules Janssens: Creation and Emanation in Ibn Sīnā. In: Documenti e Studi sulla Tradizione Filosofica Medievale. Volume 8, 1997, pp. 455-477. On Ibn Sīnā's position see also Nicholas Heer: Al-Rāzī and al-Ṭūsī on Ibn Sīnā's Theory of Emanation. In: Parviz Morewedge (ed.): Neoplatonism and Islamic Thought, Albany 1992, pp. 111-125, here: 111-113.
  31. On the examination of Muslim thinkers with the concept of emanation see Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Oliver Leaman (ed.): History of Islamic Philosophy, Part 1, London 1996, pp. 110, 187–189, 227–229; Part 2, London 1996, pp. 789-796. On al-Kindī see Peter Adamson: Al-Kindī, Oxford 2007, pp. 56–59.
  32. Miyan Muhammad Sharif: A History of Muslim Philosophy, Vol. 1, Wiesbaden 1963, pp. 601–608, provides a presentation of al-Ġazālī's argumentation . Sharif writes from the perspective of a follower of al-Tazālī's position.
  33. For details see Nicholas Heer: Al-Rāzī and al-Ṭūsī on Ibn Sīnā's Theory of Emanation. In: Parviz Morewedge (ed.): Neoplatonism and Islamic Thought, Albany 1992, pp. 111-125, here: 115-123.
  34. On emanation in Ashkenazi Hasidism and in Kabbalistic literature (including the further development of emanatic thought among modern Jewish thinkers) see Karl Erich Grözinger : Jüdisches Denk, Volume 1, Frankfurt am Main 2004, pp. 76–81, 157–185, 192-195, 217-230, 253-263, 272-275, 414-419, 482-489, 530-542, 567-579, 609-611, 623-657, 765-773, 811-817, 889f.
  35. Daniel H. Frank, Oliver Leaman: History of Jewish Philosophy, London 1997, pp. 152–154; Karl Erich Grözinger: Jewish Thinking , Volume 1, Frankfurt am Main 2004, pp. 507-511, 516, 529-535, 539.
  36. On this model, see Daniel H. Frank, Oliver Leaman: History of Jewish Philosophy, London 1997, pp. 164–166.
  37. Karl Erich Grözinger: Jüdisches Denk, Volume 1, Frankfurt am Main 2004, pp. 447f., 453, 466f., 470f., 484.
  38. Gershom Scholem : Origin and Beginnings of Kabbalah, 2nd edition, Berlin / New York 2001, p. 386 ( limited preview in the Google book search).
  39. Kevin Fischer: Converse in the Spirit. William Blake, Jacob Boehme, and the Creative Spirit, Madison 2004, p. 38 ( limited preview in Google Book Search).
  40. ^ Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: Discours de métaphysique 14.
  41. ^ See on Leibniz 'concept of emanation André Robinet: Architectonique disjonctive, automates systémiques et idéalité transcendantale dans l'œuvre de GW Leibniz, Paris 1986, pp. 431–442; Robert Merrihew Adams: Leibniz. Determinist, Theist, Idealist, New York 1994, pp. 131f.
  42. ^ Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling: Complete Works, 1st Department, Vol. 8, Stuttgart 1861, pp. 210f.
  43. On Schelling's concept, see Werner Beierwaltes: The True Self, Frankfurt am Main 2001, pp. 206–208, 219–227; Werner Beierwaltes: Platonism and Idealism, 2nd edition, Frankfurt am Main 2004, pp. 119–132.
  44. Jens Halfwassen: Hegel and the late antique Neo-Platonism, Bonn 1999, p. 66f. (see pp. 328-339).
  45. Werner Beierwaltes: Platonism and Idealism, 2nd edition, Frankfurt am Main 2004, pp. 169–175, 181f.
  46. ^ Heinrich Denzinger : Compendium of Confessions of Faith and Church Doctrinal Decisions, 43rd edition, Freiburg 2010, p. 764f. (No. 3024 = D 1804).