Kurt Flasch is a major scholar with over sixty years of study of Meister Eckhart (c.1260–1328). His book Meister Eckhart: Philosopher of Christianity reappraises Eckhart and his wide variety of writings on the basis of recent textual advances and Flasch's own rereading of Eckhart's works. For Flasch, the best way into Eckhart's thought lies in Eckhart's own descriptions of his work. These statements, Flasch argues, show that Eckhart thought of himself as first and foremost a philosopher, rather than a mystic or theologian. In his Latin commentary on John, for instance, Eckhart says that he has three goals: to interpret and explain the Gospel by means of philosophical arguments; to show that the content of true philosophy is contained in scripture when properly interpreted; and to offer ethical teachings along the way. This is why Flasch calls Eckhart a ‘philosopher of Christianity’: he aims to interpret and prove Christian doctrines, including the Trinity and the incarnation, by means of philosophical reason.
Flasch traces Eckhart's philosophical views across all his writings, from his earliest sermons to his final defence against charges of heresy at the end of his life. Flasch argues that these views are derived from Aristotle, the Islamic philosophers Avicenna and Averroes, and his older contemporary (and, possibly, friend) Dietrich of Freiberg. Eckhart is a realist about universals. Justice, goodness, truth, and other similar universals really exist. Moreover, when we say that someone is just, our statement refers to justice itself within her. Justice makes her just by dwelling within her and, so to speak, ‘giving birth’ to her insofar as she is just. But justice, like goodness, truth, unity and so on, is also uncreated. These universals are identical with God and interchangeable with God. In addition, Eckhart follows Maimonides in holding that God is one and simple. For this reason, all those universals are one in God. It is only our limited reason that distinguishes among them. Thus, God is fully present in the just person and gives birth to her insofar as she is just. The same goes for goodness, truth and the rest.
Following Avicenna, Eckhart identifies God with Being. Whatever being creatures have is identical with God. Apart from God creatures are nothing, and it could be said that creatures exist within God. Eckhart understands God's being as intellectual in nature. When my eye beholds a tree, for instance, my image of the tree is in effect the union of eye and tree brought about by the activity of seeing. In this same way, knowing unites the intellect and the known object. For Eckhart, creatures are like those images and concepts, while God is more like the seeing and knowing that produce them. God, then, is best seen not as a static being, a thing, but as an active, energetic process of creation and union.
Eckhart's work points to the immediate availability of God within the context of ordinary life and existence. There is virtually nothing about the afterlife in his thought. He calls for selfless detachment from the created things of ordinary experience, which are nothing without God, and a life based on love with no thought of reward. Flasch thinks it is no surprise that the church of Eckhart's day condemned him.
Flasch's reading of Eckhart is strong and persuasive, with clear grounding in the texts. Every student of Eckhart should read it. Flasch is too dismissive of mysticism, which he interprets in a narrow way that ignores the work of Bernard McGinn and others to broaden its scope. He debunks the former belief that Eckhart preached mainly to nuns and beguines, but he does not explore Eckhart's relationship to women. There is no mention of Marguerite Porete, whose Mirror of Simple Souls may have influenced Eckhart, nor does Flasch go into why Eckhart mentions in his defence the favour his ideas found among both men and women. Though Flasch traces Eckhart's philosophy in his written works, there is no chapter here that steps back from the texts to provide an overview or logical reconstruction of that philosophy. Nor does Flasch offer any comments on the contemporary relevance of Eckhart's ideas, though he is critical of Eckhart's realism about universals (see p. 255). Flasch prefers to treat Eckhart as a historical figure rather than as someone who could help us think about our own questions today. But anyone interested in drawing on Eckhart for this purpose will find Flasch's book a valuable guide to Eckhart's thought.
