segunda-feira, 31 de outubro de 2011

Letters from Vöegelin on Heidegger

A Fundamental Misapprehension of Plato and Aquinas



Relying on his belief in participation (methexis), Voegelin finds that the language of the forms (eidos) found in the Phaedo expresses the “mysteries” of “presence (parousia) and the community” (koinonia).



The ideas penetrate and “constitutes the reality” of a thing in the same way God, or the gods, speak the “Word” (logos) to prophets or tragic Heros.17 Heidegger should have known better since he works with Ionic symbols, which were advanced in a kosmos “full of gods.”



Four years later in a letter to Michael Murray where he attempts to address philosophical problems, Voegelin suggests that they “will dissolve if one simply does not focus all philosophical attention on what Heidegger considers to be the difference between Being and beings.”18



The ontological difference that Heidegger popularized in his fundamental ontology not only contains “a residuum of myth,” but “should be eliminated from philosophy.”19 For what justification does Heidegger give that “Being should be the ultimate category of philosophy?" 20 Besides “the difference between a Grund and an Abgrund is nothing extraordinary.” 21



Once again, Voegelin attacks Heidegger based on his misunderstanding of myth because, “he mixes up the intracosmic Gods of myth and the Abgrund of the mystics.”22 Aquinas is praised as having already addressed the issue in three phases “as the depth structure in the experience of God of (1) God as Being; (2) God as person with a name; and (3) God as the nameless, impenetrable substance.”23



And Voegelin does not believe that a reconciliation of Heidegger and Aquinas is possible, which is why he has not studied Karl Rahner carefully.24 So Voegelin is convinced that Heidegger does not know the Abgrund of the mystics when he talks of God on the ontic level, as a particular being.



Voegelin tells Alfred Schütz that in speculating on God, if “fallacies are to be avoided,” then Aquinas’ “Tetragrammaton” notion must remain in differentiating the Trinity of the dogma.

The first of these experience is that of the radical transcendence of God (Thomistically heightened: the God of philosophical speculation, “being”; the God of theological speculation, the personal God who has a “name”; the personless, nameless, radically transcendent God of the Tetragrammaton”–a masterly phenomenology, by the way, of the experiences of transcendence)” (emphasis added).25



Notice the words “masterly phenomenology” and the context of traditional Trinitarian theology.

0 comentários :