Subject: Re: phenomenology of religion Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 12:31:03 +0200 From: "P. Johnston" <smirglehoffeth-AT-yahoo.com> To: <heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 4:32 AM Subject: Re: phenomenology of religion > Henk expounds Heidegger thus: > > >In GA60:116:125 Heidegger describes how Paul's > >letters are no longer about a doctrine (hae basileia > >tou theou - Luc. 16:16) but about a way of life > >(Rom 1:3; 10:9). > > Leaving aside Heidegger's questionable exegesis (that > is, first century Jews did not tend to consider Torah > [ho nomos kai hoi prophetai -- "the law and the > prophets"] to be a matter of doctrine, but precisely > the manner in which life might authentically be lived; > Heidegger is simply not doing adequate Biblical > exegesis here), one has to wonder just how restricted > a role he is leaving doctrine. Paul and Allen, If there is a distinction between the evangelists and Paul - isn't it precisely the distinction between what and how? What happened - and how to live with it? In GA60:112 Heidegger wonders about the restricted role of doctrine in Paul's letters: "The situation is not one of theoretical proof" (Die Situation ist keine solche des theoretischen Beweises). - See Allen's reference to Aristotle. > Is he dismissing it > outright, as one might well imagine? (As Allen seems > to imagine?) Or is he leaving it a real but > subordinate role within a religious form of life which > has non-objectifying presence before God as its > overall teleology? In which case, traditional > doctrine might be preserved intact and carry a certain > normativity, but as an instrumental means for > cultivating the form of life in question (something > like the position in George Lindbeck's _The Nature of > Doctrine_ which revolutionized theology a couple of > years back; also closer to Jesus' and Paul's attitudes > towards the law and the prophets as these are > represented in the canonical NT. That is, > Christianity is not about keeping the law and the > prophets, but it inevitably keeps them -- Heidegger's > NT citation continues "it is easier for heaven and > earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter in > the law to be dropped" and hardly endorses an > antinomian or anti-doctrinal spirit). Following Heidegger Paul is no longer trying to found the how in the what. The what only becomes understandable in the how.(Das Dogma als abgeloester Lehrgehalt in objektiv-erkenntnismaessiger Abhebung kann niemals leitend fuer die christliche Religioesitaet gewesen sein, sondern umgekehrt, die Genesis des Dogmas ist nur verstaendlich aus dem Vollzug der christlichen Lebenserfahrung. - GA60:112). > And, regardless of what Heidegger might say on this > matter, what do you think about it, Allen and Henk? > Of what value (if any) is doctrine to the cultivation > of a religious way of life? If it is valuable, what > makes it so? I waffle, but I think I'll bank on > Lindbeck when all is said and done. If Allen were to > bank on Mordecai Kaplan, would it be the same thing as > to bank on Lindbeck? (and as to bank on Heidegger)? > > Paul of St. John's Towne (Johnston), > Not an Apostle of Christ Jesus. A religious way of life is essential for the cultivation and preservation of a religious doctrine - if we may believe Heidegger. I tend to agree with him. Henk --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005