Correspondances
April 28, 2007
by Michael
“God is dead.”
—Nietzsche
“Nietzsche is dead.”
—God
“Some are born posthumously.”
—Nietzsche
“Christendom has had a series of revolutions and in each one of them Christianity had died. Christianity has died many times and risen again; for it had a God who knew the way out of the grave … . the Faith has a better following among the young men than among the old … . At least five times, therefore, with the Arian and the Albigensian, with the Humanist sceptic, after Voltaire and after Darwin, the Faith has to all appearances gone to the dogs. In each of these five cases it was the dog that died.”
—Chesterton
Comments
On May 2 at 10'08 AM
, grs wrote:
Marion takes this claim of niet. to mean only that metaphysics and the god of metaphysics is dead. Its inspired me to begin work on a new screenplay, in the style of arrested development.
Jean-luc Marion: Metaphysics is dead; the idols and ills of postmodern man can only addressed by the ancient physick brought by the gift in the Pseudo-Dionysius the areopogite.
Garrett Smith: Him?
On May 2 at 12'52 PM
, Michael Sullivan wrote:
Jean-luc Marion: Metaphysics is dead; the idols and ills of postmodern man can only addressed by the ancient physick brought by the gift in the Pseudo-Dionysius the areopogite.
Garrett Smith: Him?
Ha ha! That’s awesome. Arrested Development rocks.
As for Marion, I’m not sure he goes far enough. Nietzsche certainly does call himself an anti-metaphysician, but it’s not like he believes in God in some other “nonmetaphysical sense”, whatever that would be.
At the beginning of Book V of The Gay Science, if I recall correctly, N. explains what he means by the “God is dead” remark: namely that for us modern Westerners God has become unbelievable, although not everyone realizes it yet and there’s a vestigial remnant of religiosity in the culture.
Hence the Chesterton: what had grown unbelievable for the fathers, what seemed like an outmoded relic, becomes once again believeable, and new, and alive, for the sons.
On May 2 at 1'53 PM
, Anonymous wrote:
I only gave half of the Marion equation: He pairs N.’s God is dead with Heideggers critque of onto-theology into a super anti-onto-theological whammy against any natural knowledge of God. to overcome it we need to embrace the, wait for it…Gift.
On May 2 at 2'09 PM
, Neil wrote:
I am amused that N. is so popular that he can be known only by an initial.
On May 2 at 5'36 PM
, Anonymous wrote:
According to Liccione he even has a candy bar now.
On May 2 at 6'11 PM
, Michael Sullivan wrote:
The Will To Power Bar!!!
So awesome.
Also: I’ve been learning more about “ontotheology” lately. The very word makes me angry. Dumb ol’ Heidegger.
On May 2 at 6'26 PM
, patrick findler wrote:
To feed the fuel of your irritation: I didn’t know (until seconds ago) that ontotheology was actually a technical term in Kant, with a circumscribed meaning. (Theology through pure concepts.) And Heidegger, who uses it to mean metaphysics or all philosophy or ontology up to him, claims to be separating philosophy from theology from metaphysics in calling them all the same thing. How’s that for sleight of hand?