Sie sind auf Seite 1von 28
Heidegger and Theology Author(s): Hans Jonas Source: The Review of Meta p h y sics

Heidegger and Theology Author(s): Hans Jonas Source: The Review of Metaphysics, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Dec., 1964), pp. 207-233 Published by: Philosophy Education Society Inc.

Accessed: 16/02/2011 08:52

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Philosophy Education Society Inc. is collaborating with

Philosophy Education Society Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Review of Metaphysics.

http://www.jstor.org

ARTICLES

HEIDEGGER AND

THEOLOGY*

HANS JONAS

JL he

partially

origin

problem

of

oBJEGTiFiGATiON, and with

bequeathed

it that

of reversing

or

unmaking

in the mating

it, was

of

toWestern

with

and

theology

from

its

the Greek

the Greek l o g o s .

logos.

even

slightly

It

older.

o l d e r .

dominant

in

the

and which

very

first

the Biblical

theology

parentage

was

word

itself,

would

is thus

as old

as Christian

Which

side

of

the double

recessive

in

the

offspring

be

demonstrated

encounter

happened

unwittingly

etymology

underpin

The

of

to

the

the Biblical

two

in Philo

by

word

an

"Israel."

Judaeus.

through

allegory

A

him

telling

and

symbol

his

evolves

not

the

of what

is

an

to

acquir

from

the

into

These

to

successors

from

supplied

of

the name

which

he

was

(Heidegger

first

etymologizing.)

philosophical

is taken

name

of

propositions

"He who

of

into

views

that

This

sphere,

to God?and

by masterful

sees God,"

the God-seeker's

seeing,

eyes.

made

The

on

the most

"knowing

eminence

name

this

to mean

and

Jacob's

progress

possible

by

allegory

God."

falls

genuine

of

ing

the

is said

hearing

to represent

to

that

of

of Philo's

ears

supposition

beholding.

stage

miraculous

the

general

rest

being

extended

on

is

most

conversion

pattern

the Platonic

intuition,

into

the

authentic

relation

sight,

when

and

of

religious

relation

determines

with

also

it also

the highest

to

the word

God.1

To

this Philo

indeed

assigns

a nature

which

makes

vision,

address

* This

at

the

paper

was

Second

delivered

Consultation

in

on

slightly

abridged

Hermeneutics,

form

devoted

as

to

the

the

opening

Problem

Non-Objectifying

by

the

number

reproduces

sunt,

ed.

by

"Seeing

the

ruling

(phronesis),

gain

science

of

vened

of

Thinking

School

Loeb

standard

the

Philo

Classical

Greek

and

Cohn

eyes

the

of

exists

and

of

Speaking

Drew

in Contemporary

April

to

in

Theology,

1964.

and

volumes,

9-11,

volume

ten

con

margin

which

to

Opera

quae

super

1896-1930).

.

.

this

. butjseeing

is

the

with

insight

succeeded

behold

the

not

only

Father

to

and

Graduate

The

the

to

of

University,

are

according

edition,

1 References

of

Judaeus

text

of

Library

Philonis

Alexandrini

(Berlin,

senses

faculties:

has

the

Leopold

with

principle

the

all

Paul

Wendland

fairest

is

soul

the

the

excels

mind.

in

nature

of

all

all

other

He

but

who

also

vision

that

208

HANS

JONAS

i.e.,

intellectual

contemplation,

criterion.

the

voice"

Referring

(Exodus,

to the phrase

20:

18),

he

and

not

in Exodus,

comments:

audition,

"All

its

genuine

the people

saw

"Highly

significant,

Creator

God

of

there

ing

VI

eye

57

of

f. ).

the

is nothing;

all,

has

his

soul

may

attained

to

the

and

pray

whoever

for

this

summit

of

has

reached

blessedness,

Him

thus

stage

to persist

and

last"

for

with

(De

Note how God

is here

included as the highest

being

higher

the

than

intend

Abrahamo,

in the rank

order

of

ontological

approach

meaning

He

all

being;

the

which

"being"

(xEXetoTaxov

cally

being

such.

is

it

terminal

impersonal

as

Setopt'a

declares

culmination

Greek

does

perfect

a having

may

venture

bonum

appetition,

presence:

grants

ceives

(e.g.,

and

the

the

purest

way

in which

fection,

Typologically,

contrasted

lnventione,

Israel

"Jacob

depend

is

a

is

on

with

the

and

this

the

that

but

inclusion,

visual

even

as

a

culmination,

Under

the

one"

(6 wv)

is precisely

set

a

the

this

correlate

to

statement

cannot

approach.

is

the

determination.

calling

"the

with

being

Confusione

"the

good

terms

assumes

by

definite

God

clash

equally

emphasized

claim

that

This

meaning

of

God's

him

"the

most

perfect

good"

Linguarum,

IV

180).

Platoni

in

itself")

the

of

is

the

beingness

highest

of

all

category

beings

of

as

being),

such

goal:

the

an

of

being

of

Philo

the

to

transcends

becomes

all

manifest

?ya^?v,

e.g.,

understood,

hypostasized

Although

yet

the

a whole

good

into

a

"beyond

of

the

essence

of

to

be

all

intuiting

principle,

be

"the

vision,

found

most

hierarchy

and

approach

for

the

man's

end-good,

of

with

relation

object

and

his

"visual"

that

mean

good

ontological

God

of

is

the

to

in metaphysical

nowhere

that

turns

the

by

i.e.,

as

then

into

statement

Augustine),

a being;

the

the

potential

most

valid

of

mode

of

the

piety,

being

the

passage

the

the

And

for

but

could

one?"

The

Israel,

the

ontological

in

in

De

(or

Philo's

representation

essence"

essence,

(for

essence

pertains

to

specific

or

the

form

of

forms?and

as

eros

which

in

it

reaches

its

all

separated

is

but

perfect

being,

it

by

out

its

pure

good"

from

very

the

nature

structure

the

theory.

and

thus

Now

he

stays

in

line

the

ontology

to God,

determined

i.e.,

for

the

life

the

final

goal

and

the mode

of

a

of

desire

having

that

then

wherever

is

he

also

God

is

defined

understood

for

is

as

ultimate

relation

of

presence.

toward

to

son,

the

of

of

correlate

when

makes

with

by

of

it.

the

him

original

But

what

The

for

We

pietyP

object

possession,

.beholding.

as

the

final

summum

of

an

satisfaction

piety

the

 

of

a

desire

for

must

be

vision,

which

Accordingly,

 

Philo

con

as

a

progress

marks

a

decisive

hearing"

(Cf.

De

of

per

point.

type,

Fuga

a

is

et

to

to

the

that

grade

seeing:

of

the

powers

that

for

it means

of

the

truth

than

also

De

Migratione

the

ears

conversion

of

Jacob

transforming

i, V

129).

of

(the

him

object's

the

from

way

hearing

God,

seeing

the

seeing

Jacob

of

for

in

III

place

82;

converts

eyes,

(De

Ishmael,

Israel,

handmaid's

true-born,

elevation

as

the

condition

and

is

be more

the

perfect

(De

transition

breath

Ebrietate,

takes

Logos

into

the

angel)

the

the

seeing

one"

"merely

type.

V

change-over

name

hearing;

208.)

the

from

learning

Israel

himself

hearing

i.e.,

for

perfection,

realm

cf.

through

the

thereby

Somniis,

progressing,

name

'seeing

God'?and

see

the

Abrahami,

ears

"ascetic"

into

into

a new

truly

IV

eyes:

who

type

47

what

existent

ff.)

"By

wrestles

called

a divine

with

HEIDEGGER AND

THEOLOGY

209

for human

seen.

works,

logo,

WhyP

which

VII,

"speaks,"

before

sent

Biblically

command,

or

Philo

voice

to

Because

is

be

heard,

but

finished

his

God's

God

better

being

voice

is

in

truth

words

to

be

but

that which

by

the finished

word

are not

obvious

logos

he

speaks

than

is not

i s not

the

ear"

realities,

or by

are

his

in

the

47)

.2

eye discriminates

"Works,"

i.e.,

what

he,

either

at;

(De Dec?

what

acting,

call

God

puts

pre

But

and

obeyed

antithesis

seen

one

as

our

eyes.

And

and

can

be

understood,

only

looked

the

and

commands

disobeyed.

Now

has

in mind.

it

is

The

or perfected

itself

is

with

is objectively

its eidos.

it presents

of

God

looked

that

contrasts

primarily at but heard?and

the

this

is not

the

'merely"

heard

is the apophantic

(not

the

imperative)

logos which

pronounces

on

objects,

i.e.,

on

"visibles"

in

the

widest

sense,

and

thus

intention.

for

calls

indeed

Such

for

logos

a

seeing

about

a

to

fulfill

state

of

and

things,

redeem

which

is received

strains

content.

of

its

symbolic

substitutes

by

a pro

toward

its

A more

of

sign

would

by

authentic

presence

hearing"

in

the

logos,

therefore

by meaningful

which

seeing

by

of

exempt

not

of

argued

to

to the

is

bound

by

say

ideal

it

not

as

the

signs,

its own

the

from

to

visional

own

perfect,

"mere

sense

human

forms

overcoming

thing

require

seeing

of

of degree

object.

opposed

to

mode,

seeing.

is merely

signified

the

the

is

other

but

archetypal

and

duality

speech,

and

not

the mind

of

realm

the mediation

the

hearing

"seeing"?that

as

and

truth

relative

It

is with

"seeing"

and

Accordingly,

of hearing

things.

In

Philo

immediately

lies

words,

as

a whole

the

is no

of

real

immediate,

antithesis

to

this

ideal

namely,

authentic,

hearing

from

a limited

beheld

antithesis

within

the

but

a differ

presence

"hearing"

ence

of

intuitive

that

as

the

the

here

provisional

a view

is conceived,

its deputizing,

basically

to

seeing

other

here

knowl

something

turn

from

than

envisaged

a progress

to an adequate

2 Cf.

De

Migratione

voice

words

says

of

'all

of

Abrahami,

creatures

logoi)

has

of

voice.

the

of

the

soul's

God

the

eye

sense

people

all

saw

the

the members

beheld

by

is

have

is

sight."

of

pure,

unmixed

.

"Scripture

its

criterion

are

.'

seen

For

.

sentence

is

of

the

soul

of

sight

Logos

for

which

is

IV

47

ff.

for

teaches

the

in

the

the

speech

audible

visible.

their

a

that,

of

of

whereas

hearing,

light;

into

the

for

noun

voice

Therefore

The

beholds

divine

the

the

it

mortal

sense

manner

.

divided

.

. but

.

.

criterion.

pure

soul

(statements,

the

and

of

God's

verb

God

and

which

statements

communication

byacuteness

.

210

HANS JONAS

edge

we

of

have

the

same

and within

to

into

seeing

speak

turn

the

same

parable

part

project

as

and

theoretical

sense

of

of knowledge.

after

in

But

the

turn

the right

of

ears

to

to

take Philo's

eyes

which

of Gnosticism)

on

our

he

from

God

the

to

truths.

of perfection

a parable

through

for

him

their

of

will

that

"conversion

rank.

conversion

from

theology

constitution?the

the

of

into

ears

hearing

living,

the

(not

himself

original

the

In this

a symbol

Christian

primary

the

for

call

of

vision

of

underwent

hearing

the

non-worldly

supernatural,

eyes"

divine

can be

considered

the first

 

Taking

a cue

from

Philo

"seeing"

approach

from

Greek

theology,

does

the

repudiation

in

a

contemporary

philosophy

we

theology

Can

ophy

downP

the

the

sirable

of

it

to

thus

reform

lead

to

after,

e.g.,

The

itself,

a new

the medieval

question

elucidation

nature

of

and

even

of

the

thinking

necessary

to

granted,

definition the discursive,

since

theology,

as

may

ask:

If

was

the

of

adoption

a misfortune

of

the

for

philosophy

or

provide

overcoming

a

more

between

approach

means

for

to

and

has

its

task?

philos

broken

i.e.,

thought,

thought,

is

must

divine,

elucidation

is

of

of

and

de

be

by

the

that

conceptual

adequate

theology

become

alliance

one with

that

of

the

some

reality

reality

about

for

theology.

logos

in some

sense

Aristotelianism

use

by

in

secular

assumes

nature

of philosophy,

secular

This

about

scientific,

assumption

things

contents

 

of

faith

(not,

of

course,

of

the

internal

structure

 

of

faith,

which

would

be

phenomenology)

and

thus,

for one

thing,

comes

under

the

rules

and

norms

of

elucidation

and

discourse

as

such;

and

since

the

contents

of

comprise

the

dealings

of God

with

and

of

the world

and

with

man,

faith

the

must

elucidation

of

the mundane

human

side

of

this

polarity

be

informed

by

a knowledge

what

world

and man

are,

and

philosophy

is

supposed

to provide

such

knowledge.

It would

then

follow

that

that

philosophy

is

most

adequate

to

theology

which

is most

adequate

to being,

i.e.,

which

is most

nearly

true?by

the

criteria

of

philosophy

 

itself,

i.e.,

by

the

the

criteria

of

secular

reason.

But

since

for

a decision

on

this

the

theologians

cannot

wait

for

the

consensus

of

philos

ophers,

nor

even

necessarily

trust

its authority,

 

they may

be guided

in

rience

their

choice

with

and

by

the

philosophical

by

appraising

pline,

appeal

of

liaisons,

which

affinity,

the

the present

philosophy

lessons

needs

is most

of

of

past

their

helpful

expe

disci

to

the

HEIDEGGERAND THEOLOGY

211

discharge

its

own

of

theology's

genuineness,

task,

or

least dangerous

to

least

seductive,

least

alienating?by

its own

trust,

or

any

to

all

all

these counts the theologian would do well to exercise a great deal of

caution

of these considerations,

but

as

little

as possible

face of

by

fashion.

On

and mistrust.

theology

not

its

Especially

in this

in the

tempting is the otherness

not

elaborate

similarity:

of philos

before

what

ophy,

needs

similarity.

relationship

On

this

I need

a

theological audience. However,

the one

itself

the

is inescapable,

openness

and

to contemporary

the

experiment

of

relationship

choice

thought

closed

shown

is abstention.

by

theology

Thus,

in

the

present

experiment?as

comed.

it was

shown

at

all

times?is

to

be

wel

First

then,

thought,

not

be

at

denied.

least

on

the

of his

count

of

language,

He

brings

to

affinity,

the

appeal

to

the Christian

of Heidegger's

theologian

can

the

fore

precisely

what