Comments on: Augustine and Onto-theology http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2007/10/augustine-and-onto-theology/ the blog of Eric Austin Lee Thu, 10 May 2012 15:32:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Anthony Paul Smith http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2007/10/augustine-and-onto-theology/comment-page-1/#comment-2472 Anthony Paul Smith Sat, 20 Oct 2007 11:48:36 +0000 http://www.ericaustinlee.com/?p=1487#comment-2472 The Thomism of Heidegger's day, under which readings of Augustine were subsumed, was ontotheological. And one doesn't have to be a Nazi to think that, since Barth did as well. As to whether or not the patron saint of education and the patron saint of beer making were themselves ontotheological, I have to confess that reading their works makes it difficult for me to see how they aren't, even though it is qualified (i.e. the lame proofs for the existence of God "the five ways" are obviously not the main thrust of the Summa). So my point is that Heidegger's, and often other folks, readings are predicated on the climate in which they are reading. Taking that into account Heidegger was quite right (IMHO) to attack the neo-Thomism of his day. It's the same thing with Barth's neo-orthodoxy that the RadOx folks hate so much; but he was responding to the situation of the church at his time. John seems to have admitted this in the interview at the end of <em>Belief and Metaphysics</em> with regard to Liberation Theology. The Thomism of Heidegger’s day, under which readings of Augustine were subsumed, was ontotheological. And one doesn’t have to be a Nazi to think that, since Barth did as well. As to whether or not the patron saint of education and the patron saint of beer making were themselves ontotheological, I have to confess that reading their works makes it difficult for me to see how they aren’t, even though it is qualified (i.e. the lame proofs for the existence of God “the five ways” are obviously not the main thrust of the Summa).

So my point is that Heidegger’s, and often other folks, readings are predicated on the climate in which they are reading. Taking that into account Heidegger was quite right (IMHO) to attack the neo-Thomism of his day. It’s the same thing with Barth’s neo-orthodoxy that the RadOx folks hate so much; but he was responding to the situation of the church at his time. John seems to have admitted this in the interview at the end of Belief and Metaphysics with regard to Liberation Theology.

]]> By: ericaustinlee http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2007/10/augustine-and-onto-theology/comment-page-1/#comment-2433 ericaustinlee Thu, 18 Oct 2007 22:56:29 +0000 http://www.ericaustinlee.com/?p=1487#comment-2433 Hi Geoff, Thanks! Yeah, I heard the podcast of that conference with him, Kearney, and Tony Jones, and that was actually one of the influences on me further exploring this. I <i>really</i> need to make myself read Marion's <i>God Without Being</i> and then read that later article where he revised his thought on Aquinas. Cynthia Nielsen blogged on that some months ago, and that was some excellent stuff. Peace, Eric Hi Geoff,

Thanks! Yeah, I heard the podcast of that conference with him, Kearney, and Tony Jones, and that was actually one of the influences on me further exploring this.

I really need to make myself read Marion’s God Without Being and then read that later article where he revised his thought on Aquinas. Cynthia Nielsen blogged on that some months ago, and that was some excellent stuff.

Peace,

Eric

]]> By: Geoff Holsclaw http://www.ericaustinlee.com/2007/10/augustine-and-onto-theology/comment-page-1/#comment-2370 Geoff Holsclaw Mon, 15 Oct 2007 22:33:25 +0000 http://www.ericaustinlee.com/?p=1487#comment-2370 dude, good post. I totally agree. and I love that Westphal text. At the theology conference with Caputo last spring he even said that onto-theology can only really be used against modern theologians (those after Descartes). I thought that a surprising concession. dude,
good post. I totally agree. and I love that Westphal text. At the theology conference with Caputo last spring he even said that onto-theology can only really be used against modern theologians (those after Descartes). I thought that a surprising concession.

]]>