He’s pretty clearly un-Christian. — Mikie
... god as uncreated substance is simply more substance ontology — Mikie
Yes, I’m very familiar with that one line. Once context is put back, it’s not necessarily Heidegger’s claim. And it would be very odd indeed if this casual sentence is the final word on it. — Mikie
I think that Heidegger remained open to and accepting of what comes to be because he retained belief in the notion of providence. — Fooloso4
Rather than a supreme being he says that God is the ground of being. — Fooloso4
First, I do not understand what you mean when you say it is not necessarily Heidegger's claim. Whose claim is it. — Arne
since Being and Time is about laying out the structure of being rather than defining being, the definition offered is hardly the final word. Instead, the structure is the final word. — Arne
Aka "revelation" (just as authenticity loosely corresponds to "grace" or "piety").... and aletheia. — Mikie
I don’t recall Heidegger ever talking about, let alone believing in, the notion of providence. — Mikie
So I’m still not sure why you’re convinced he sees being as God. — Mikie
If I may answer briefly, and perhaps clumsily, but after long reflection: philosophy will be unable to effect any immediate change in the current state of the world. This is true not only of philosophy but of all purely human reflection and endeavor. Only a god can save us. The only possibility available to us is that by thinknig and poetizing we prepare a readiness for the appearance of a god, or for the absence of a god in [our] decline, insofar as in view of the absent god we are in a state of decline.
...
We can not bring him forth by our thinking. At best we can awaken a readiness to wait [for him].
...
It is not through man that the world can be what it is and how it is -- but also not without man. In my view, this goes together with the fact that what I call "Being" (that long traditional, highly ambiguous, now worn-out word) has need of man in order that its revelation, its appearance as truth, and its [various] forms may come to pass.
In this context, I think it’s much more likely that this sentence wasn’t meant as a serious definition. — Mikie
was markedly influenced – though of course not exclusively determined – by his (early) Jesuit education, studying neo-Thomist theology before switching to neo-Kantian philosophy and writing a habilitation thesis (i.e. PhD dissertation) on the Scholastic theologian-philosopher Dun Scotus. Not long after, H would make a considerable study of 'biblical hermeneutics' (e.g. Dilthey & theologian Schleiermacher) which, reformulated, plays a centrol role in SuZ. — 180 Proof
I could not help reading Catholic, even biblical, concepts in between the lines of the text and connotated by H's use of (undefined, cryptic) terms like "being" "authenticity" "ownmost" "resoluteness" "the they" "dasein" "being-towards-death" "forgetting of being" "temporality" etc. — 180 Proof
Regardless of manifest expressions or lack thereof in the post-Husserlian writings leading up to and including (at least) SuZ, the 'structure' (language-speaking) of H's (early?) reflections on 'being', it's reasonable to assume, was markedly influenced – though of course not exclusively determined – by his (early) Jesuit education, studying neo-Thomist theology before switching to neo-Kantian philosophy and writing a habilitation thesis (i.e. PhD dissertation) on the Scholastic theologian-philosopher Dun Scotus. Not long after, H would make a considerable study of 'biblical hermeneutics' (e.g. Dilthey & theologian Schleiermacher) which, reformulated, plays a centrol role in SuZ. — 180 Proof
I agree. He is twisting his inheritance. Falling immersion is a state of [ original, necessary ] sin. Felix culpa ! — plaque flag
was markedly influenced – though of course not exclusively determined – by his (early) Jesuit education — 180 Proof
I could not help reading Catholic, even biblical, concepts in between the lines of the text — 180 Proof
I don't either. It was meant to be suggestive. It is not something I have looked into. — Fooloso4
Only a god can save us.
Whether you consider it a "serious" definition is beside the point. — Arne
How serious you choose to take the definition is up to you. But the definition is consistent with all that follows. — Arne
I have stated on many occasions that Heidegger is not a good person for many reasons with his Nazism being foremost among them. — Arne
Heidegger would go out of his way to interpret the most fragmented and obscure text in such way as to support his ontology and in such a way as to suggest that the pre-Socratics agreed with him and he was just returning philosophy to its roots. Simply put, his intellectual honesty is suspect. — Arne
As for reading Catholicism into the text -- what can I say? Seems like that's projection. — Mikie
It also always remains doubtful whether the proposition, God is the most being-like of beings, speaks of God according to divinity. — Joshs
Nevertheless, God is not primordially linked to beyng; because beyng occurs essentially not as cause and never as ground. — Joshs
me too. — Arne
It's not that it isn't consistent, it just seems unlikely that this is what Heidegger wants to say about it rather than describing the common (albeit tacit) understanding — Mikie
I'm an atheist — plaque flag
Similarly, there is no doubt that the the "definition" of being Heidegger offers is insignificant compared to the "meaning" of being that Heidegger intends to and does articulate. — Arne
But as for what being is? Heidegger, as far as I’ve seen, never really says. — Mikie
As with the question of Being, he strives to keep the questioning going. I suspect that if asked what he believes he would deflect and say that what is important is not his beliefs but thinking. — Fooloso4
As the most being-like, God is the first cause and the last goal of all beings. God is represented as the most being-like of beings, and so God essentially occurs out of beyng. Nevertheless, God is not primordially linked to beyng; because beyng occurs essentially not as cause and never as ground. — Joshs
god as the idea is understood. — Tom Storm
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.