On a biographical level, by H's day certainly "the criticism of
religion was complete"; contemporary scholarship
in psychology, cultural anthropology, philology, scripture studies...
had gone so far de-mythologizing as to have rendered
traditional Xian cultic faith (held to as lately
as Keirkegaard) intellectually untenable (even qua "absurdity").
Can't we assume that, e.g., at some point, H saw that Krebs's was
apocryphal, and Bultman's real, thinking; and was put
to the melancholy task of jettisoning a very considerable
portion of his paideia. Doesn't his bio support this view?
So I don't see how there can
be any question of his fiducial adherence to cultic faith
and its credal theology: a god-man sacrificing himself to
atone for mankind's sin and lift the death sentence entailed
thereby, and a divinely authored book retailing the
Big Event and proclaiming its significance. I don't
appreciate the need to be indefinite on this "ontic" point?
OTOH, "Faith" (as in Marx's Intro To Hegel's....)seems
structurally identical with (the epitome of) "care". Setting
aside credal formulae (stuff about faith being a gift or
grace issuing from the Supreme Being, a conception which
would have had no force with H at this time)empirically,
especially in its naive form it is at least as pure an
ontological emanation/presencing of being-in-the-world
as art/poetry is, indeed it claims equiprimordiality with
"The Word" itself. Yet, it seems the dialectical
opposite (i.e. faith in the overcoming of death) being-towards-life,
if you will, of H's dasein. How could the "death" theme be at all
coherent if it compassed or countenanced a faith
in the overcoming of death? Therefore ultimately, don't you have to
say that H's absolutizing of death precludes Christian faith.
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
religion was complete"; contemporary scholarship
in psychology, cultural anthropology, philology, scripture studies...
had gone so far de-mythologizing as to have rendered
traditional Xian cultic faith (held to as lately
as Keirkegaard) intellectually untenable (even qua "absurdity").
Can't we assume that, e.g., at some point, H saw that Krebs's was
apocryphal, and Bultman's real, thinking; and was put
to the melancholy task of jettisoning a very considerable
portion of his paideia. Doesn't his bio support this view?
So I don't see how there can
be any question of his fiducial adherence to cultic faith
and its credal theology: a god-man sacrificing himself to
atone for mankind's sin and lift the death sentence entailed
thereby, and a divinely authored book retailing the
Big Event and proclaiming its significance. I don't
appreciate the need to be indefinite on this "ontic" point?
OTOH, "Faith" (as in Marx's Intro To Hegel's....)seems
structurally identical with (the epitome of) "care". Setting
aside credal formulae (stuff about faith being a gift or
grace issuing from the Supreme Being, a conception which
would have had no force with H at this time)empirically,
especially in its naive form it is at least as pure an
ontological emanation/presencing of being-in-the-world
as art/poetry is, indeed it claims equiprimordiality with
"The Word" itself. Yet, it seems the dialectical
opposite (i.e. faith in the overcoming of death) being-towards-life,
if you will, of H's dasein. How could the "death" theme be at all
coherent if it compassed or countenanced a faith
in the overcoming of death? Therefore ultimately, don't you have to
say that H's absolutizing of death precludes Christian faith.
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---