Jeremiah Hackett reviews Philip Tonner's Heidegger, Metaphysics and the Univocity of Being, in NDPR.
[T]he primary explicit thesis of the book is based on the view of Rudolf Allers that "Being is a univocal term" for Heidegger. The author holds that "This remark when taken with Deleuze's pronouncement that Heidegger 'follows Scotus,' motivates my project". The Appendix is concerned with "The Univocity of Being: Deleuze". It is the key to the thesis of the book. Deleuze is made normative for a reading of Scotus, all of the history of philosophy, and all of Heidegger's works.
Prima Facie such a reading of Heidegger seems utterly absurd! Not only is it the case that Heidegger's habilitationschrift makes plain the fact that he is by no means an orthodox follower of Scotus (or Thomas of Erfurt for that matter)...but ever since Heidegger's reading of Brentano's book on this very question of how Being is manifold, Heidegger has always refused to refer to the unity of this multiplicity as a univocity! This is nowhere made more obvious than his 1931 treatment of Aristotle's "doctrine" of the analogical predication of Being (GA 33) where Heidegger painstakingly emphasizes how Aristotle was seeking to reformulate the problem of the One and the Many in a way that DID NOT reduce the Many to the One, while yet preserving the unified meaning that is proper to the truth of Being. Heidegger never wavered from this contention regarding Aristotle, as is hinted at again in his Letter to Richardson some 30 plus years after the lecture on Book Theta now known as GA 33. I sure would love to hear Deleuze's argument for reading Heidegger otherwise!
I am not familiar with MH on Scotus, but I am familiar with the ontological difference and the Same. Is there an understanding of "univocity" that does not assert simple uniformity? MH does affirm the one-fold with the four-fold, but is that as privilege or to assert coherence?
