The notion - that ontology can set so potentially momentous a
category as the possibility of a supreme being outside its analytic,
on the basis of some mechanical 'division of labor' notion of hierarchial
levels
of knowledge - still seems somehow specious? "Ontology" purports to compass
the entirety, by definition includes the notion of methodological generality.
Its concern with History, Science, Art,...Religion is not , of course, empirical
,
but would logically be entailed thematically in the notion of the "questioning
being".
One can legitimately say that the question of God's existence/non-existence,
like
the squared circle, is nonsense; and therefore, logically excluded. Or, otoh,
that History, Science, Art , Religion are all material forms of
man-the-symbol-maker's metaphysical response to his endless questioning the
meaning of being. But, to stipulate for the possibility of a deeper, higher,
more general, etc. level of being, God, and then, by method, exclude that
possibility, all its momentous implications, thematically from an excursus on
human being,
would make the latter a moot (howsoever virtuosic) exercise...phenomonology's
equivalent of the angels dancing on the head of a pin problem.
Piety can take many shapes short of authentic "faith", especially in young and
old man.
H's, better said, the author-of-B&T's dismissiveness of theology appears the
"nonsense"
judgement (tho his substantivizing "nothingness" seems the ironic equivalent);
and his
own system, his totalizing dasein and death, insuperably contradictory to
Xianity ("grave where is thy victory"). And indeed B&T appears
precisely an onto-theology, a death-of-god-theology???
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
category as the possibility of a supreme being outside its analytic,
on the basis of some mechanical 'division of labor' notion of hierarchial
levels
of knowledge - still seems somehow specious? "Ontology" purports to compass
the entirety, by definition includes the notion of methodological generality.
Its concern with History, Science, Art,...Religion is not , of course, empirical
,
but would logically be entailed thematically in the notion of the "questioning
being".
One can legitimately say that the question of God's existence/non-existence,
like
the squared circle, is nonsense; and therefore, logically excluded. Or, otoh,
that History, Science, Art , Religion are all material forms of
man-the-symbol-maker's metaphysical response to his endless questioning the
meaning of being. But, to stipulate for the possibility of a deeper, higher,
more general, etc. level of being, God, and then, by method, exclude that
possibility, all its momentous implications, thematically from an excursus on
human being,
would make the latter a moot (howsoever virtuosic) exercise...phenomonology's
equivalent of the angels dancing on the head of a pin problem.
Piety can take many shapes short of authentic "faith", especially in young and
old man.
H's, better said, the author-of-B&T's dismissiveness of theology appears the
"nonsense"
judgement (tho his substantivizing "nothingness" seems the ironic equivalent);
and his
own system, his totalizing dasein and death, insuperably contradictory to
Xianity ("grave where is thy victory"). And indeed B&T appears
precisely an onto-theology, a death-of-god-theology???
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---