本文探討柏羅丁與迪奧尼修斯的否定神學彼此間的差異，及其當代的哲學意義。文章第一部分的比較分析在兩者共有的一般特色之外，探究它們各自的特點。此部分的主要論點是：迪氏否定神學試圖獲得關於上帝的神秘知識，而柏氏否定神學的目的則是破除人們能夠獲得冥合的誤解。文章第二部分則在當代分析知識論的脈絡下詮釋柏羅丁與迪奧尼修斯的否定神學，並指出：兩人的否定神學都可看作對於命題性宗教信念之知識論的批判。此外，迪氏對於神秘知識的解釋方式近似於德性知識論，而柏氏論證太一之不可知的方式，則與「知識第一」知識論類似。

This article inquires into the specific differences between Plotinus’ and Dionysius’ negative theologies and their contemporary philosophical significance. The comparative analysis looks beyond their general similarities to focus on their respective features. Its main thesis is that while Dionysius’ negative theology aims at attaining mystical knowledge of God, Plotinus’ version is intended to dispel the illusion that man can attain henosis. The contemporary interpretation puts Plotinus’ and Dionysius’ negative theologies in the context of analytic epistemology. It is suggested that although both can be understood as criticisms of the epistemology of propositional religious belief, Dionysius’ analysis of mystical knowledge of God is closer to virtue epistemology while Plotinus’ approach to human ignorance of the One is more similar to knowledge-first epistemology.