DOCSLIB.ORG

Heidegger and Marion on the Intersection of Philosophy and Theology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Heidegger and Marion on the Intersection of Philosophy and Theology ONTO-THEOLOGY UNVEILED ONTO-THEOLOGY UNVEILED: HEIDEGGER AND MARION ON THE INTERSECTION OF PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY By BRIAN WAYNE ROGERS, B.Ed., B.A. A Thesis Submitted to the School ofGraduate Studies in Partial Fulfilment ofthe Requirements for the Degree Master ofArts McMaster University © Copyrighted by Brian Wayne Rogers, 2007 11 MASTER OF ARTS (2007) McMaster University (Philosophy) Hamilton, Ontario TITLE: Onto-theology Unveiled: Heidegger and Marion on the Intersection of Philosophy and Theology AUTHOR: Brian Wayne Rogers, REd. (Western), RA. (Guelph) SUPERVISOR: Dr. Brigitte Sassen NUMBER OF PAGES: viii, 85 111 Abstract Heidegger defines onto-theology as a calculative form ofthinking that reduces everything to an object or being on the basis ofan absolute grounding term. God is called upon in onto-theology to be this highest term upon whom all other beings taken as a whole are grounded in their universal "Being". Historically, Onto-theology grounds the relationship between philosophy and theology on this system ofuniversal ontology that admits only sameness under the conditions ofcausality and sufficient reason. Heidegger calls for a "step back" from onto-theology into a mode ofphilosophical thinking that allows beings to appear on their own terms and that gives theology a relative degree of autonomy to treat the believer's existential relation to the Other. Jean-Luc Marion, on the other hand, rejects Heidegger's "philosophical" solution to onto-theology in favour ofa radically "theological" one. Marion contends that the ontological concept itselfis the source ofonto-theology and as such, it must be overcome in a mystical relation to the Wholly Other that accomplishes a radical reversal ofphilosophical thinking. Marion bolsters his theological project with a phenomenology of"givenness" that treats the paradox ofthe arrival oftranscendence as philosophy's highest possibility. In this project I trace the contours ofHeidegger's and Marion's respective steps back from onto-theology and argue that Heidegger's earliest accounts of"facticallife" offer fruitful resources to expose a residual onto-theology in Marion's thought. I identify the deepest source ofonto-theology to be any commitment to the absolute autonomy of theoretical thought vis-a.-vis grounding commitments or worldview. Furthermore, I argue that Marion's step back from onto-theology is not only incomplete but perpetuates the philosophical view that ontology is necessarily or structurally violent. I conclude by sketching a program for a Christian philosophy that respects the relative autonomy of philosophy and theology as theoretical disciplines mutually existentially rooted in worldview. This retrieval respects the basic hermeneutical conditions ofphilosophizing even while it opens a space for Christian philosophy to express its own ontological assumptions about the subject's relation to the Wholly Other. IV Acknowledgments I am indebted to a good number ofpeople without whom I would not have been able to complete this project. I would like to extend special thanks to my supervisor, Dr. Brigitte Sassen, and my second reader, Dr. Dana Hollander, for teaching me to write like a scholar. I would also like to thank Dr. James K. A. Smith (Calvin College, Grand Rapids, MI) for his continued mentoring and support. His own work has inspired me both as an academic and as a Christian. But above everything else I am grateful that he has called me his friend. I thank my parents, Brad and Deb, for their tireless encouragement and for the genuineness oftheir enthusiasm about what I do, as abstract as it may seem to them at times. Finally, this project would not have been possible without the loving support ofmy wife, Sarah. She is a source ofcontinued wisdom that keeps me grounded in the things that trump the importance even ofphilosophy. v Table ofContents Abbreviations ][ntroduction 1 ][: Unveiling onto-theology: thinking at a crossroads 9 What is metaphysics? Heidegger and Marion on the "step back" 11 An opening: Heidegger's question ofBeing 12 The way out ofonto-theology 16 Phenomenology ofreligion as the hermeneutics offacticity 21 The formal indication as phenomenological method 22 Conclusions: Theo-logy or theo-Iogy? 26 II: Interpretation of donation: a phenomenological critique of Marion 30 Marion's critique ofHeidegger revisited 32 The fact ofthe matter: Marion's reduction to donation 35 A matter offact? In defense ofthe hermeneutics offacticity 41 Destruction ofdonation: A hermeneutical investigation 45 Conclusions: Thinking ontology differently: Interpretations 49 III: Possibilities: toward a hermeneutic Christian philosophy 51 A critique ofMarion's "heuristic" model ofChristian philosophy 54 Christian philosophy beyond scholasticism 59 Conclusions: On the idol and icon as hermeneutic categories 70 Conclusion 74 Bibliography 78 VI Abbreviations Works by Martin Heidegger BPP Die Grundprobleme der Phiinomenologie. Lecture course (1927). Frankfurt am Main: V. Klostermann, 1975. The Basic Problems ofPhenomenology. Revised Edition. Translated by Albert Hofstadter. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1982. BT Sein und Zeit (1927). Frankfurt am Main: V. Klostermann, 1977. Being and Time. Translated by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson. New York: Harper and Row, 1962. FC Die Grundbegriffder Metaphysik: Welt, Endlichkeit, Einsamkeit. Lecture course (1929/30). Frankfurt am Main: V. Klostermann, 1983. The Fundamental Concepts ofMetaphysics: World, Finitude, Solitude, translated by William McNeill and Nicholas Walker. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1995. HT Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Zeitbegrijfs. Lecture course (1925). Frankfurt am Main: V. Klostermann, 1979.History ofthe Concept ofTime: Prolegomena, translated by, Theodore Kisiel. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1985. IM EinjUhrung in die Metaphysik (1935). Frankfurt am Main: V. Klostermann, 1983. Introduction to Metaphysics, translated by Gregory Fried and Richard Polt. New Haven: Yale UP, 2000. IP EinjUhrung in die phiinomenologische Forschung. Lecture course (1921/22). Frankfurt am Main: V. Klostermann, 1985. Introduction to Phenomenological Research, translated by Daniel O. Dahlstrom. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 2005. LH "Letter on Humanism." In Basic Writings, edited and translated by David Farrell Krell. New York: Harper and Row, 1977. 193-242. MF Metaphysische Anfangsgriinde der Logik im Ausgang von Leibniz. Lecture course (1928). Frankfurt am Main: V. Klostermann, 1978. The Metaphysical Foundations ofLogic, translated by Michael Heim. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1984. N'N Nietzsche's Word: 'God is Dead.'" In Martin Heidegger: Offthe Beaten Track, edited and translated by Julian Young and Kenneth Haynes. Cambridge: UP, 2002. 157-99. OM "Overcoming Metaphysics." In The End ofPhilosophy, translated by Joan Stambaugh. New York: Harper and Row, 1973. OT "On The Essence ofTruth." In Basic Writings, edited and translated by David Farrell Krell. New York: Harper and Row, 1977. 114-41. OTM "The Onto-Theo-Logical Constitution ofMetaphysics." In Identity and Difference, translated by Joan Stambaugh. New York: Harper & Row, 1969. PA Phiinomenologische Interpretationen zu Aristoteles: EinjUhrung in die Phiinomenologische Forschung. Lecture course (1921/22). Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, 1985. Phenomenological Interpretations ofAristotle: Initiation into Phenomenological Research, translated by Richard Rojcewicz. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 2001. Vll PIU.., Phiinomenologie des religiosen Lebens. 1. Einleitung in die Phanomenologie der Religion, 2. Augustinus undder Neuplatonismus, 3. Die philosophischen Grundlagen der mittelalterlichen Mystik, edited by Matthius Jung, Thomas Regehly, and Claudius Strube. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, 1995. The Phenomenology ofReligious Life, translated by Matthias Fritsch and Jennifer Anna Gosetti-Ferencei. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 2004. PT "Phanomenologie und Theologie." Lecture (1927). Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, 1970. "Phenomenology and Theology." In The Piety ofThinking: Essays by Martin Heidegger, translated by James G. Hart and John C. Maraldo. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1976. TB "Time and Being." In On Time andBeing, translated by Joan Stambaugh. New York: Harper & Row, 1972. 1-24. WM "What is Metaphysics?" In Basic Writings, edited and translated by David Farrell Krell. New York: Harper and Row, 1977.95-112.287-317. Works by Jean-Luc Marion BG Etant donne: Essai d'une phenomenologie de la donation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1997. Being Given: Toward a Phenomenology of Givenness, translated by Jeffrey L. Kosky. Stanford: UP, 2002. CP "'Christian Philosophy': Hermeneutic or Heuristic?" In The Question ofChristian Philosophy Today, edited by Francis J. Ambrosio. New York: Fordham UP, 1999. 247-64. EP Le phenomene erotique: Six meditations. Paris: Bernard Grasset, 2003. The Erotic Phenomenon, translated by Stephen E. Lewis. Chicago / London: University ofChicago Press, 2007. FA "The Final Appeal ofthe Subject." In Deconstructive Subjectivities, edited by Simon Critchley and Peter Dews. Albany: SUNY Press, 1996. 85-104. G'WB Dieu sans l'etre: Hors-Texte. Paris: Librairie Artheme Fayard, 1982. God Without Being, translatd by Thomas A. Carlson. Chicago: UP, 1991. IE De surcroft: Etudes sur les phenomenes satures. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2001. In Excess: Studies ofSaturated Phenomena, translated by Robyn Homer and Vincent Berraud. New York: Fordham UP, 2002. ITN "In The Name: How to Avoid Speaking of 'Negative Theology'." In God, the Gift, andPostmodernism, edited by John D. Caputo
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ontotheology? Understanding Heidegger’S Destruktion of Metaphysics* Iain Thomson
    T E D U L G O E R · Internationa l Journal o f Philo sophical Studies Vol.8(3), 297–327; · T a p y u lo o r Gr & Fr ancis Ontotheology? Understanding Heidegger’s Destruktion of Metaphysics* Iain Thomson Abstract Heidegger’s Destruktion of the metaphysical tradition leads him to the view that all Western metaphysical systems make foundational claims best understood as ‘ontotheological’. Metaphysics establishes the conceptual parameters of intelligibility by ontologically grounding and theologically legitimating our changing historical sense of what is. By rst elucidating and then problematizing Heidegger’s claim that all Western metaphysics shares this ontotheological structure, I reconstruct the most important components of the original and provocative account of the history of metaphysics that Heidegger gives in support of his idiosyncratic understanding of metaphysics. Arguing that this historical narrative generates the critical force of Heidegger’s larger philosophical project (namely, his attempt to nd a path beyond our own nihilistic Nietzschean age), I conclude by briey showing how Heidegger’s return to the inception of Western metaphysics allows him to uncover two important aspects of Being’s pre-metaphysical phenomeno- logical self-manifestation, aspects which have long been buried beneath the metaphysical tradition but which are crucial to Heidegger’s attempt to move beyond our late-modern, Nietzschean impasse. Keywords: Heidegger; ontotheology; metaphysics; deconstruction; Nietzsche; nihilism Upon hearing the expression ‘ontotheology’, many philosophers start looking for the door. Those who do not may know that it was under the title of this ‘distasteful neologism’ (for which we have Kant to thank)1 that the later Heidegger elaborated his seemingly ruthless critique of Western metaphysics.
    [Show full text]
  • Kant's Theoretical Conception Of
    KANT’S THEORETICAL CONCEPTION OF GOD Yaron Noam Hoffer Submitted to the faculty of the University Graduate School in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Philosophy, September 2017 Accepted by the Graduate Faculty, Indiana University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Doctoral Committee _________________________________________ Allen W. Wood, Ph.D. (Chair) _________________________________________ Sandra L. Shapshay, Ph.D. _________________________________________ Timothy O'Connor, Ph.D. _________________________________________ Michel Chaouli, Ph.D 15 September, 2017 ii Copyright © 2017 Yaron Noam Hoffer iii To Mor, who let me make her ends mine and made my ends hers iv Acknowledgments God has never been an important part of my life, growing up in a secular environment. Ironically, only through Kant, the ‘all-destroyer’ of rational theology and champion of enlightenment, I developed an interest in God. I was drawn to Kant’s philosophy since the beginning of my undergraduate studies, thinking that he got something right in many topics, or at least introduced fruitful ways of dealing with them. Early in my Graduate studies I was struck by Kant’s moral argument justifying belief in God’s existence. While I can’t say I was convinced, it somehow resonated with my cautious but inextricable optimism. My appreciation for this argument led me to have a closer look at Kant’s discussion of rational theology and especially his pre-critical writings. From there it was a short step to rediscover early modern metaphysics in general and embark upon the current project. This journey could not have been completed without the intellectual, emotional, and material support I was very fortunate to receive from my teachers, colleagues, friends, and family.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Theology and the Christian Contribution to Metaphysics: on Thomas Joseph White’S Wisdom in the Face of Modernity
    Nova et Vetera, English Edition, Vol. 10, No. 2 (2012): 539 –62 539 Natural Theology and the Christian Contribution to Metaphysics: On Thomas Joseph White’s Wisdom in the Face of Modernity NICHOLAS J. H EALY , J R. John Paul II Institute Washington, DC From the very heart of Christian faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek thought now joined to faith, Manuel II was able to say: Not to act “with logos” is contrary to God’s nature. [T]he faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which unlike - ness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abol - ishing analogy and its language (cf. Lateran IV). God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. This inner rapprochement between biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry was an event of decisive importance not only from the standpoint of the history of religions, but also from that of world history—it is an event which concerns us even today. 1 It is my view that the neoscholastic rationalism that was trying to reconstruct the praeambula fidei, the approach to faith, with pure rational certainty, by means of rational argument that was strictly inde - pendent of any faith, has failed; and it cannot be otherwise for any such attempts to do that kind of thing.
    [Show full text]
  • Heidegger-Ontotheology.Pdf
    Heidegger on the History of Metaphysics as Ontotheology https://www.ontology.co/heidegger-ontotheology.htm Theory and History of Ontology by Raul Corazzon | e-mail: [email protected] Martin Heidegger on the History of Metaphysics as Ontotheology PRELIMINARY NOTE In its initial form this section will offer five pages: 1) Heidegger's contributions to the interpretation of the Greek word for Truth (Aletheia) as Unconcealment and to the history of his translation in Latin as Veritas; 2) An annotated bibliography of Heidegger's texts on Aletheia and a selection of critical studies; 3) Heidegger's contributions to the interpretation of the History of Metaphysics as Ontotheology; 4) An annotated bibliography of Heidegger's texts on the History of Metaphysics as Ontotheology and a selection of critical studies; 5) A complete list of Heidegger's German works published in the Gesamtausgabe (Collected Works Edition). INTRODUCTION "Heidegger's way of understanding the originary phenomenon of truth is to "make clear the mode of being of the cognition itself." His starting point is a proposition that is not based on intuition. Someone says with his or her back to the wall: this picture hangs askew. The proposition embodies the claim to have discovered the picture (as a being) in the "how" (the mode) of its being. The proposition displays this "how" of being in language. In the attempt to verify the proposition by sensuous experience, the recognition, according to Heidegger, is directed only to the intended being (the picture) and not to the proposition. It is directed to the being itself (which is to be verified by perception) in its mode of uncoveredness (Entdeckt- heir), i.e., in its showing-itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Parmenides and Heidegger
    This is an electronic reprint of the original article. This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail. Author(s): Backman, Jussi Title: Unity in Crisis: Protometaphysical and Postmetaphysical Decisions Year: 2013 Version: Please cite the original version: Backman, J. (2013). Unity in Crisis: Protometaphysical and Postmetaphysical Decisions. In A. Magun (Ed.), Politics of the One: Concepts of the One and the Many in Contemporary Thought (pp. 87-112). Bloomsbury Academic. Political Theory and Contemporary Philosophy. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781501301643.ch-007 All material supplied via JYX is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, and duplication or sale of all or part of any of the repository collections is not permitted, except that material may be duplicated by you for your research use or educational purposes in electronic or print form. You must obtain permission for any other use. Electronic or print copies may not be offered, whether for sale or otherwise to anyone who is not an authorised user. This is an accepted manuscript of a book chapter published in Politics of the One: Concepts of the One and the Many in Contemporary Thought, ed. Artemy Magun (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013), pp. 87–112, available at Bloomsbury via http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781501301643.ch-007. Jussi Backman Unity in Crisis: Protometaphysical and Postmetaphysical Decisions The metaphysics of unity: its end and its onset The notion of an end of metaphysics dominated twentieth-century philosophy. The roots of the theme trace back to Hume’s skeptical attack on the metaphysics of substance and Kant’s subsequent critical attempt to redeem the metaphysical mode of knowledge—the synthetic a priori—in the form of a de-absolutized transcendental philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontotheological Turnings?
    Chapter 1 Some Notes on a French Debate Introducing Ontotheology Thinkers such as Levinas, Marion, and Lacoste are all trying to understand what the word God might mean in the contemporary world once that which was understood by this term previously has been proclaimed dead. Indeed, it seems that the God that passed away is brought to life again in what has been called “the theological turn of French phenomenology.”1 Lacoste, Marion, and Levinas, then, try to think God as other than the ‘God’ of ontotheology. Although the term ontotheology was first used by Kant, the concept and the problem thereof stems from Heidegger. According to Heidegger, ontotheology first and foremost concerns philosophy. Broadly speaking, Heidegger criticized philosophy’s tendency to talk about God too hastily and too easily. Philosophy’s task is to think ‘being’ and not God. For Heidegger, ontotheology and metaphysics are essentially a forgetting of being, concerned merely with beings. Therefore, philosophy cannot open up to the ‘ontological difference’ between being and beings; it prefers controllable, foreseeable, and ‘present-at-hand’ objects. Objects lend themselves easily to the reckoning and calculations required for technology’s mastery over being. It is in this sense that we encounter in our God talk the same, univocal primacy of beings or objects. In general, the ontotheological endeavor seeks an ultimate reason that can account for the totality of beings. Its point of departure—beings—forbids that ontotheology encounters anything other, at the end of the chain of beings, than a being. Proceeding from the finite to the infinite, ontotheology’s obsession with objects decides in advance how God will enter the philosophical discourse.
    [Show full text]
  • Kant, Metaphysics, and the Proofs for the Existence of God
    THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO THE NEEDS OF REASON: KANT, METAPHYSICS, AND THE PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE DIVINITY SCHOOL IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY THOMAS SCOTT FERGUSON CHICAGO, ILLINOIS JUNE 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface iv Chapter I. Why the Proofs?, Why Metaphysics?, Why Kant? 1 I. Metaphysics and Apologetics 3 A. “...quiddam meditationis exemplum” (Anselm) 4 B. “...aliquae verisimilitudines” (Thomas Aquinas) 9 C. “...les fondemens de la Metaphysique” (Descartes) 13 D. Apology Without Doctrine? 17 II. Metaphysics and Idolatry 20 A. What Metaphysics Is 23 B. Ontotheology 31 C. Complications; Or, the Retrogression of the Proofs 36 III. A New Critique of Rational Theology? 45 Chapter II. An Introduction to the Precritical System of Proofs 50 I. Preliminary Comments 51 II. The Precritical Critique of Rational Theology (Beweisgrund III) 57 ​​ ​ ​ III. Kant’s First System of the Proofs 61 A. A Note on Terminology 62 B. The Argument of Beweisgrund III 64 ​ ​ Chapter III. The Proofs from Intellectual Concepts 72 I. The Cartesian Proof 72 A. Perfection and Existence 76 B. “Apud me” and Descartes’ Ontology of Ideas 80 C. Formal Distinction (Descartes on Existence, Part I) 86 D. “Existence is not at all a predicate…” 93 E. Existentiality and the Ens Necessarium 101 II. The Ontological Proof 108 A. Ontology and Necessity 111 B. “…The perception of the infinite is in me earlier than that of the finite…” 116 C. The Activa Facultas (Descartes on Existence, Part II) 126 Chapter IV. The Proofs from Empirical Concepts 133 I.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction Heidegger on Ontotheology
    Cambridge University Press 0521851157 - Heidegger on Ontotheology: Technology and the Politics of Education Iain D. Thomson Excerpt More information Introduction Heidegger on Ontotheology Martin Heidegger is now widely recognized as one of the most influ- ential philosophers of the twentieth century. Until the late 1960s, this impact derived mainly from his early magnum opus, Being and Time (published in 1927). Many of the twentieth century’s most significant continental thinkers – including Hannah Arendt, Rudolf Bultmann, Hans-Georg Gadamer, J¨urgenHabermas, Emmanuel Levinas, Herbert Marcuse, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Paul Tillich – acknowledge profound conceptual debts to the insights elaborated in this text. Being and Time was never finished, however, and Heidegger continued to develop, refine, and in some places revolutionize his own thinking for another fifty years. This “later” Heidegger’s prolific body of work decisively influenced the next generation of continental philoso- phers, helping to shape the concepts and concerns of major contempo- rary figures such as Jean Baudrillard, Maurice Blanchot, Jacques Derrida, Hubert Dreyfus, Michel Foucault, Luce Irigaray, Jacques Lacan, Richard Rorty, and Charles Taylor, to name but a few. Despite this unparalleled im- pact, however, important aspects of Heidegger’s later philosophy remain obscured by confusion and controversy. Heidegger on Ontotheology: Technology and the Politics of Education seeks to clarify five interrelated aspects of Heidegger’s later thought, namely, his neglected understanding of metaphysics as ontotheology, his contro- versial critique of technology, his appalling misadventure with Nazism, his prescient critique of the university, and, finally, his important philo- sophical suggestions for the future of higher education.
    [Show full text]
  • Surviving Postmodernism: a New Ontotheology
    American Journal of Sociological Research 2015, 5(3A): 13-21 DOI: 10.5923/s.sociology.201501.02 Surviving Postmodernism: A New Ontotheology Jim Hanson A Retired Senior Researcher with the University of Southern Illinois Abstract Postmodernism has applied deconstruction to theological doctrine and religious practice with mixed results. Whereas its use has made theology/religion less dogmatic, its excessive use has challenged the survival of theology/religion, including ontotheology. Postmodernism directly challenges the theistic, Abrahamic theologies that predicate a God personalized as a father or ruler and interpersonalized as responsive to soliciting prayer. Many Christian theologians now recognize that “God” is only a word that refers to nothing existent outside religious texts, so agreeing with Jacques Derrida. Nietzsche’s proclamation of God being dead might appear to be final. The postmodernist challenge can be countered by neo-ontotheology that recognizes the finitude of being (ontos) and the infinitude of the divine (theos) and that employsmethods (logos) that are postmodernist as well as conventional. Unlike traditional ontotheology, neo-ontotheology borrows from postmodernism to deconstruct most language formations, yet avoids deconstructing ontological/scientific knowledge that reflects certainty, order, and universality. Using such knowledge to proceed from the finitude of secular knowledge to the infinitude of divine knowledge, neo-ontotheology is positioned between the “weak” theology of postmodernists and “strong” theology of traditionalists. Keywords God and being are the same, or God has being from another and thus himself cannot be God, Meister Eckhart, Sermons illusory, which undercuts order and meaning, which is the 1. Deconstruction difference between modernist reductionism and postmodernist deconstruction.
    [Show full text]
  • The Later Heidegger and Contemporary Theology of God Daniel Martino
    Duquesne University Duquesne Scholarship Collection Electronic Theses and Dissertations Fall 2004 The Later Heidegger and Contemporary Theology of God Daniel Martino Follow this and additional works at: https://dsc.duq.edu/etd Recommended Citation Martino, D. (2004). The Later Heidegger and Contemporary Theology of God (Doctoral dissertation, Duquesne University). Retrieved from https://dsc.duq.edu/etd/884 This Immediate Access is brought to you for free and open access by Duquesne Scholarship Collection. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Duquesne Scholarship Collection. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Later Heidegger and Contemporary Theology of God A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Department of Theology McAnulty College and Graduate School of Liberal Arts Duquesne University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Daniel J. Martino November 2004 Director: William M. Thompson-Uberuaga, Ph.D. Reader: Marie L. Baird, Ph.D. Reader: Anne M. Clifford, C.S.J., Ph.D. Reader: George S. Worgul, Jr., S.T.D., Ph.D. i Abstract Martin Heidegger was a central figure in 20th century Western philosophy. In evaluating his work from the perspective of the early 21st century it is clear that his influence crossed disciplinary lines. This work aims to address one area where Heidegger’s thinking has had tremendous impact – theology. Specifically, Heidegger’s later writings are selectively examined in order to determine the bearing they have on the issue of God. The route to God, in a strict confessional sense, is neither easy nor direct in the Heideggerian corpus.
    [Show full text]
  • Unknow Thyself: Apophaticism, Deconstruction, and Theology After Ontotheology
    Modern Theology 19:3 July 2003 ISSN 0266-7177 (Print) ISSN 1468-0025 (Online) UNKNOW THYSELF: APOPHATICISM, DECONSTRUCTION, AND THEOLOGY AFTER ONTOTHEOLOGY MARY-JANE RUBENSTEIN Whoever will be poor in spirit, he must be poor of all his own knowl- edge, so that he knows nothing, not God or created things or himself.1 I. Ground-Setting: Denials One wonders why, after thirty-five years, the question of “apophaticism’s” relation to “deconstruction” has not been put to rest. After all, the author himself has issued the final word: “No, what I write is not ‘negative theol- ogy.’”2 While he acknowledges a certain “family resemblance”3 between these pre- and post-modern radical negativities, the father of différance ulti- mately says “no”. “No, I would hesitate to inscribe what I put forward under the familiar heading of negative theology.”4 Why does this not satisfy us? Why are we not satisfied with this “not”? Perhaps, as good post-Freudian readers, we are suspicious of denial, particularly when it is so vigorous, not to mention frequent: “those aspects of différance which are thereby delineated are not theological, not even in the order of the most negative of negative theologies”.5 Perhaps we are less likely than ever before to take a “word” as “final”, even if—especially if—uttered by the “author himself”, or, for that matter, his translator: “Let me add yet once again that this terrifying and exhilarating vertigo is not ‘mystical’ or ‘theological.’”6 Why not rest with this not? Could it be because a not with which we might rest would not be a Mary-Jane Rubenstein 150 Claremont Avenue, Apt.
    [Show full text]
  • Passive Nihilism and Ontotheology: Doi: TBC a Reply to Husbands on Derivative Temporality
    Essay Finance and Society 2021, EarlyView: 1-12 © The Author(s) Passive nihilism and ontotheology: doi: TBC A reply to Husbands on derivative temporality Austin Hayden Smidt University of Sydney, Australia Abstract Conor Husbands’ defense and expansion of Elena Esposito’s temporality of finance is a much- needed intervention. However, in this response essay, I will show a few of the fundamental weaknesses of Esposito’s project, and by extension will highlight some shortcomings of Husbands’ defense-expansion. The point is not to dismiss either project; the goal is rather to bring attention to certain philosophical presuppositions that ground both, and that enclose each in what Markus Gabriel would call an ontotheological orientation. In short, Esposito and Husbands operate via an orientation that attempts to think ‘the world’ as an all-encompassing domain, despite claims to the contrary. How this occurs will be explained below, paying particular attention to the stakes of thinking from such an ontotheological orientation in and to the world. After first presenting Husbands’ argument, I develop some critiques of Esposito and Husbands via the work of Suhail Malik, Ray Brassier, Elie Ayache, Jon Roffe, and Quentin Meillassoux. I then open the aperture towards emerging trends in philosophy that contest the foundations upon which Esposito’s project is built, in order to suggest more robust readings of finance and society. The work of Sergei Prozorov and Markus Gabriel will be the focus here, but these thinkers merely serve as stand-ins for larger
    [Show full text]