Re: on the other hand...

> On Fri, 2 Jun 1995, Iain Thomson wrote:
> > Chris-
> >
> > One more thing. What does
> > God (being as Ereignis)
> > mean?
> >
> > Iain
> It was part of my theological comparison. It meant that in Heidegger,
> the role assigned to God in Christian theology was given to being as
> Ereignis. This is a functional comparison and was not intended to equate
> being as Ereignis with the Christian God. As I said earlier, being as
> Ereignis is neither just nor good.
> --- from list [email protected] ---
Oh. I had thought you might be trying to make the (in?)famous
pronouncement from the Der Spiegel interview more, though it sounds
funny to say it: Heideggerian. (Only a new <being as Ereignis> can
save us).

Do you have any thoughts on the critique of Heidegger's thinking of
being as a negative theology (raised by Rorty and others)?

In 1951 Heidegger said, "If I were yet to write a theology, as I am
sometimes tempted to do, the word being ought not to appear
therein." (To which Derrida responds, "But didn't he write it?").

(On a side note, I am in complete agreement with your strategy for
handling the contradictions over existential modalization, and would
just add that the contradictory statements become a Q of p.o.v.,
whether looking forward to or backward from the existential analysis
of being-toward-death).

--- from list [email protected] ---


Partial thread listing: