Subject: RE: Self-evidently so ...
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 08:59:13 +0100


Michael Eldred wrote:
>
> Yes, Michael, it does make a difference, and God or godliness
> has to be thought
> and experienced anew from the thinking of being, but such
> rethinking does not
> mean by any means that the term God could be substituted for
> being, since the
> former remains a being, no matter how it is thought about.
>
Dear Michael,

part of the complication here is that I am not at all sure Heidegger thought
"God is a being" - in fact I'm convinced he didn't.  Certainly God does not
"exist" (cf. for instance, GA40: "Trees are, but do not exist, God is, but
does not exist ..." there are statements of this kind in a number of
places) - only Dasein as such exists (existence meaning being that being for
whom the being of being can be an issue).

I can point to a tree, can I point to God?  Answer - yes and no.  I can only
know the God / godliness in being (das Sein), but such a knowing always
brings me (brings Dasein) phenomenologically into the question.  So how do I
point to God?  What brings God, who is not a being, into God's to be (being,
das Sein).

It is because God is not *a* being that people like Steiner have been able
to make the points they do.  The answer is to some extend given in
Heidegger's lectures on Aristotle (GA33).  Here the distinction between God
and being is expressly carried out (with reference to Eckhart) not as "God
is a being, being is not a being, but in the following way:  Being can never
be thought as God because being is finite, God is not.  The finitude of
being allows God to be pointed towards within the realm of being.  The
finitude of being, however, never exhausts or even allows the essence of God
to be thought by referring to being (das Sein) (c.f. the piece you and I
both referred to before [GA15], where Heidegger specifically says he is
asked whether God and being are the same every week).

Hope this helps

Laurence




     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---