Saturday, June 05, 2010

millinerd.com on the analogy of being. Point number
5. Modern thinkers like Heidegger did not successfully replace, nor did they even reject the analogy of being; they just never properly understood it.

Heidegger's approach to ontology... is nothing but the final expression of a modern philosophical forgetfulness of theology's vision of being... The tradition that speaks of God as infinite being and creatures as finite beings that exist through participation is one that has thought through the genuinely qualitative difference between being and beings, and between the infinite and the finite, far more thoroughly than [critics of the analogy of being], who merely presumes a univocal ontology and blithely projects it back over a tradition to which it is alien and which it is not able to illuminate...
Which comes first, illumination, or the conditions for the possibility of illumination?
No outward appearance without light--Plato already knew this. But there is no light and no brightness without the clearing. Even darkness needs it. How else could we happen into darkness and wander through it?

P. 444
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home
For when Ereignis is not sufficient.

Appropriation appropriates! Send your appropriations to enowning at gmail.com.

View mobile version