Dear Mr. Onetto,
please excuse for answering your spanish e-mail through the discussion
group, but I do not know your personal e-mail address. As your questions
concerning the question of god in the Beitraege can be of general interest,
I allow myself to make some comments ' to whom it may also concern' in
English.
1) What do I think about the Beitraege and if the thinking of Being ends (at
this time) in a Theology.
This is a big question! I found the texts on Da-sein (turning the question
of Dasein into the one of
Da-sein) very illuminating. In my opinion Hs main contribution to the
philosophical question of God ("theo-logy") is his questioning of the
metaphysical God as being thematized by Western Logos. So he is looking for
another kind of language as the metaphysical Logos. Hoelderlin allows him to
say things that (as he once said, I forgot where!) he would not dare to say
by himself... and Hoelderlin made his tongue free (as he also somewhere
said...). But I think that the main point is the questioning of the God of
metaphysics and the problem of a phenomenological approach to the divine.
There is also a famous text (I think in Identitaet und Differenz) where he
points to different "stages" of the question (question of Being, question of
the sacred, question of the divine, question of god, or something
similar...). To give up the God of Metaphysics in Philosophy (and also in
real life!) is Hs main contribution to this matter. Concerning the
difference between H and, for instance, Nietzsche: H. remains
phenomenologically open to the question, without puting it inside the
horizon of Grounding or fundamentum (even the one of the Ewiger Wiederkehr)
As I became aware of this during my priest education with the Jesuits, it
resulted in a v e r y liberating experience. Of course I am not saying that
you can not do it with some other author... or in some other way...
2) Whether H thinking after 1929 concerning poetry and "eschatology" lead
him to his decision in 33? Well, may be, but this does not mean, that his
paths of thinking culminate mandatory in a political option or that they do
this "unforcefully" (neither zwangslaeufig nor zwanglos). If you put the
question historically like this (and this is the way Ott, Farias and also
Alexander Schwan, in different ways, do), then you are asking for
motivations and explanations, but you may be missing the point he was
intellectually looking for. This depotentiation of his thinking based on
"historical facts" sometimes ends with, for instance, a restoration of
metaphysics, or with an "encomium" of democracy (as in the case of A.
Schwan) or... giving up the chance of going further in the task of
phenomenology in which he was engaged all his life, as you point out. The
question is, whether there is a possibility of "making" the phenomenon of
the divine to appear or of "letting" it appear through a long process of
questioning the different images of God (and the divine) "painted" on the
appearances... This does not mean, I think, there is a "hidden essence" of
God behind the metaphysical paintings, but, and this is in my opinion the
(one) sense of the "Ereignis" i.e. of the philosophic title of the
Beitraege, there is a presence/absence "process" of "essenceing" (Wesen in
the verbal sense), but there is not, like in Hegel, some kind of general
view of history as a "revelation" of the absolute, or of "using" the
thinking of the "thinkers and poets" for a foundation of politics .
Nevertheless we are always in a "political" way answering (or not answering)
to the hidden/open dimension of the divine (for instance taking it as a
foundational dimension of politics; I am thinking for instance on the
different ways, for instance, Iran, or the USA or Germanys Grundgesetz
"answer" to it in a "formal" way as well as in "everyday policy", and on the
influence of media on this etc.).
There is a lot to say and not to say about this "violent" and "virile"
"sub-ject". Poeggeler has given, I think, some important historical and
"philological" hints on this question (his book is still, I believe, the
best introduction to H.). But the question is, whether you want to explain
Hs thinking and doing, or whether you are engaged in the question (and in
being-in-question) by the matter itself. I am particularly strucked by the
lot of theo-metaphysical thinking in today' s information technology
(Cyberspace as a kind of heaven on earth, etc.). Is thisthe alternative to
the religions of the past? and to Hs. questioning? I really do not believe
that Schwans democratic arguments against Hs. thinking paths will open new
insights on dealing with metaphysical questions such us: is there a god?
what and/or who is god? etc. An interesting book about the renaissance of
religion in today' s society is the one published by Gianni Vattimo and
Jacques Derrida: La Religion (summarizing a workshop in Capri , Gadamer was
also present). How to think religion at the end of modernity? is there a
non-virile or non-violent relationship to the divine? (thinkt about the
dimension of the feminine in Lacans interpretation of mysticism, partic.
Theresa de Avila), is there a possibility (as Vattimo asks) of thinking the
Kairos of history without a (hidden) relationship to revelation?
Excuse me for these long divagations. Remember Juan de la Cruz paths: nada,
nada, nada, nada, nada, nada, nada
Saludos
Rafael
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---