From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Tue Dec 07 2004 - 10:10:00 GMT
Hi Ham,
> Besides, I don't see the idea "that 'theism' must be rejected, and so,
> therefore, must Christianity" is at all pivotal to the present discussion on
> Morality. Certainly I'm not defending Christianity here. For some unknown
> reason you seem to willing to extend the traditional notion of Christianity
> in order to include me. Thanks, but the fact that I don't feel it necessary
> to "condemn" religion doesn't mean I'm advocating it.
I have a different notion of what 'traditional' Christianity is to most non-Christians, especially
those in Protestant cultures. So I don't think I'm 'extending' anything at all - I just have a
suspicion that you're arguing for orthodoxy, possibly unknowingly. I was just wanting to point out
some areas that you might be interested in exploring, given what I could discern of your interests.
> It's gratifying to know that I "fit happily" somewhere, but
> "onto-theological" is a new label for me. Does the prefix relate to
> 'ontological' by any chance?
David Morey might like to comment further on this, but the term derives, as I understand it, from
Heidegger, although the underlying concepts are very traditional, ie it is exactly what Aquinas and
the mystics were concerned with. (And you're a fan of Eckhart, so it would seem you'd be interested
in where he fits with the tradition?) I've copied something in below my signature. I should say that
I'm not at all an expert in this area - bit arcane for me - but it's something that many people I
know are quite excited by.
Sam
~~~~~
"Ontotheology: Ontologie is the 'study [logos] of beings [onta]', Theologie the 'study of God
[theos]'. Heidegger combines these Greek-derived words to form Onto-Theologie or Onto-Theo-Logie.
The idea, but not the words, stem from Aristotle, whose 'first philosophy' considers both beings as
such and the highest being (Kant und das Problem der Metaphysik, 220 / 150; Einleitung zu 'Was ist
metaphysik?', 373 / 75). Thus ontotheology asks two distinct questions: 1. What are beings as such
in general? 2. What is the highest being, and what is its nature? (Kant These über das Sein, 443).
The questions are easily conflated in German, since Was ist das Seiende?', 'What are beings?', is
literally 'What is the being?' or 'What is that which is?', which might be either question 1 or
question 2. Sometimes Heidegger gives a different account of the two questions. Question 1 is 'about
beings as such [nach dem Seienden als einem solchen]', question 2 is 'about beings as a whole [nach
dem Seienden im Ganzen]' (Kant und das Problem der Metaphysik, 220 / 150). He imputes this
conflation to his earlier self: in Was ist Metaphysik?, 'metaphysics is defined as the question
about beings as such and as a whole [nach dem Seienden als solchem and im Ganzen]. The wholeness of
this whole [Die Ganzheit dieses Ganzes] is the unity of beings, the ground that brings them forth
and unifies them. To anyone who can read, this means: metaphysics is Onto-Theo-Logie' (Identität und
Differenz, 51 / 54. Elsewhere he locates the confusion in the whole phrase das Ganze des Seienden
als solchen, 'the whole of beings as such', which might mean: 1. `the most general features of
beings', or 2. 'the highest and thus divine being' (Einleitung zu 'Was ist metaphysik?, 373 / 275).
(Aristotle is innocent of this confusion: his god is one being among others, not the whole of
beings. But in Identität und Differenz Heidegger is dealing with Hegel, whose god is the overall
structure of beings, not an individual being.)
Biologie is the 'study' or 'science' of living creatures. But in OntoTheologie, -logie plays a
grander role. Logos, from legein, 'to lay out, arrange, gather, say, etc.', means 'ground [Grund],
letting (things) lie before (us) [Vorliegenlassen]', and also 'gathering [Versammlung], uniting'
(Identität und Differenz, 54f. / 57; 67 / 69). Metaphysics does both. It gathers beings together to
consider them 'as a whole'. It regards being as the 'ground' of beings: 'Ontology and theology are
'-logies' because they get to the bottom [ergründen] of beings as such and ground [begründen] them
as a whole [im Ganzen, lit. 'in the whole']' (Identität und Differenz, 56 / 59). Hence Hegel called
metaphysics 'logic'; it is Onto-Theo-Logik.
How does God become a being, the highest entity, rather than simply Sein, 'being'? Being and beings
are distinct but inseparable. Being 'grounds [gründet]' beings, and conversely beings 'beground
[begründen]' being. But beings can beground being only in the form of a single supreme being, a
cause that is causa sui, 'cause of itself': 'This is the appropriate name for the god of philosophy.
Man cannot pray to this god, nor offer sacrifices to him. Man cannot fall to his knees in awe before
the causa sui, nor dance and play music before this god' Identität und Differenz, 70 / 72).
Heidegger thinks that 'god-less thinking', in rejecting this god of philosophy, is 'perhaps closer
to the divine god' (Identität und Differenz, 71 / 72): 'the ontotheological character of metaphysics
has become questionable for thinking, not on the basis of any atheism, but from the experience of a
thinking which has seen in onto-theo-logy the still unthought unity of the essence of metaphysics'
(Identität und Differenz, 51 / 55). In thinking about this unity, and about the DIFFERENCE that
metaphysics discerns only hazily, Heidegger goes beyond metaphysics."
From: Michael Inwood - A Heidegger dictionary - Oxford, Blackwell Publishers, 1999, pp. 149-150.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 07 2004 - 10:15:05 GMT