God is the unique being who created the universe with his infinitepower. God is unique because he must be absolute in all respects suchthat he can create the universe and be different from all things hecreates. Conceptualization of God in this way plays a key role especiallyin the theistic idea of God. Therefore, God is the possessor of allperfections opposites of which cannot be conceived. When weconceptualize God in this way, we obligatorily face the problem of howto express him. This brings us to the point of relationship betweenlanguage and God. Hence, the language of religion is one of theimportant problems of philosophy of religion. The reason why languageis a subject of philosophy is the problem whether language, which has alimited structure, can express God, which is an infinite being. In spiteof all problems related to language, philosophers and theologians talkabout God in different ways. There are three ways of talking about God:The first one is the cataphatic theology that qualifies God with positiveattributes; the second one is analogy; and the third one is the negativeor the apophatic theology. Positive theology and analogy are quitecommon in the philosophical and theological tradition. However, canGod be really expressed with positive attributes? Or to what extent is itcorrect to predicate anything to God? We see the negative theology as areaction to such questions. According to these theologians, God, whichis a transcendent being incapable of being encompassed by ourintellectual world, can never be expressed by limited language.Predicates attributed to concrete objects by human knowledge cannotbe predicated to God.In this article we will attempt to investigate negative theology overthe Neo-Platonist tradition mostly by focusing on Plotinus’ views. Inorder to substantiate our subject, we will first deal with the views ofPlato from the Antique period because he was Plotinus’ precursor andsource. Afterwards, we will discuss the discourse of the Jewish thinkerPhilo of Alexandria from the tradition of Hellenistic theology, who, inour opinion, is the precursor of both the Neo-Platonic theologicaltradition and the negative theology. This is because Philo is the pioneerof Plotinus in this subject. In the final analysis, we will look into andevaluate Plotinus’ negative theology.The reason leading us to such a research is that philosophic andtheological traditions intersect on negative theology. Many researcherslooked into the idea of God of Plato, Philo and Plotinus; however, thereis not much in Turkish philosophical literature regarding the way theyexpress God. Therefore, we looked into the subject with a philosophicalapproach in a rational, systematic, extensive and consistent way. Wefirst dealt with the historical background of the problem. In the secondphase, we presented conceptual explanations and discussions. Finally,we critically analyzed the views of the relevant philosophers regardingthe subject.Tanrı Hakkında Konuşa(ma)mak: Plotinus’da Negatif Teoloji 737Turkish StudiesInternational Periodical For the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or TurkicVolume 10/2 Winter 2015While researching the subject, we referred to first-hand sources.Therefore, we used the original and authentic works of thephilosophers. When necessary, secondary sources regarding the subjectwere 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), HarvardUniversity Press, Vol: VII; PHILO. (1958). De Posteritate Caini (On thePosterity 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), HarvardUniversity Press, Vol: VII; PHILO. (1958). Quod Deus Immutabili sit (OnThe Unchangeableness of God), Harvard University Press, Vol: III;PHILO. (1960). Quod Omnis Probus (Every Good Man is Free), HarvardUniversity 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 asWITTGENSTEIN, Ludwig. (1985). Wittgenstein, Tractatus LogicoPhilosophicus,Trans. Oruç Aruoba, Bilim/Felsefe/Sanat pub., İstanbul;WOLFSON, Harry A. (1947). “The Knowability and Describability of Godin Plato and Aristotle,” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, V. 56,(1947), p. 233-249; WOLFSON, Harry A. (1962) Philo: Foundation ofReligious Philosophy in Judaism Christinaity and Islam, Vol: I-II, HarvardUniversity Press, Cambridge-Masachusett; REÇBER, Mehmet Sait.(2010). “Plotinus: Tanrı’nın Birliği ve Basitliği Üzerine”, AnkaraÜniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 51:1 (2010), p. 59-78;PLANTINGA, Alvin (1980). Does God Have A Nature, MarquetteUniversity Press, Milwaukee; BUSSANICH, John. (2006). “Plotinus'sMetaphysics 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 PlatonicTradition: From Plato to Eriugena, Peeters Press, Leuvain; CORRIGAN,Kevin (2006). “Essence and Existence in the Enneads”, The CambridgeCompanion of Plotinus, ed. Lloyd P. Gerson, Cambrige Universiy Press,Cambridge.Since negative theology deems language inadequate in expressingGod, it sometimes includes expressions that may contradict with eachother in its discourse regarding God. The way to understand and usenegative theology is to change our language habits and to movelanguage outside of its usual boundaries. Of course, it is evident thatthis will produce many p