0453604001404404010 079145875x 0791458768 by Unknown

Author:Unknown
Language: eng
Format: epub

61. “Being as the generative ground [of beings] . . . itself needs to be properly accounted for by that for which it accounts, that is, by the causation through the supreme original matter—and that is the cause as causa sui. This is the right name for the god of philosophy. Man can neither pray nor sacrifice to this god. Before the causa sui, man can neither fall to his knees in awe nor can he play music and dance before this god.” Heidegger, Identity and Difference, 72.

62. “The god-less thinking which must abandon the god of philosophy, god as causa sui, is thus perhaps closer to the divine God. Here this means only: god-less thinking is more open to Him than onto-theo-logic would like to admit.”

Heidegger, Identity and Difference, 72.

63. Sigmund Freud, Future of an Illusion, ed. James Strachey (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1989).

64. “Thus Thales had seen the unity of that all that is, but when he went to communicate it, he found himself talking about water!” Friedrich Nietzsche, Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks, trans. Marianne Cowan (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1962), 45.

65. “On the Gift-Giving Virtue,” Part One, Section 22, Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 186–191.

66. Paul Tillich, Love, Power, and Justice: Ontological Analyses and Ethical Applications (New York: Oxford University Press, 1960).

From the Loving Struggle to the Struggle to Love ᳚ 51

67. COS: Derrida is good in pointing this out—how it effects our whole existence. But the mistake he makes, I think, is in assuming that the gift as a love that is not conditional can only be understood in a metaphysical sense—without any condition whatsoever. The possibility that this might be understood existentially as a love given without the condition that it be returned escapes him. Rather than beginning with the experience of the gift, he begins with a definition of the gift that presupposes the metaphysical distinction he then uses to demonstrate its impossibility. The gift is defined as an infinite love which in order to be an infinite love must be a goodness that infinitely effaces itself in forgetfulness. This is then juxtaposed with the responsibility imposed upon finite individuals to love infinitely who in order to be responsible for this love must be capable of answering for what they give. This in turn requires an awareness of the giving which contradicts the requisite forgetfulness. Thus the gift as infinite love can have no effectuality in finite existence. Here the gift is defined before it happens. But taken existentially, it is the awareness—not the effacement—of the possibility of a giving that expects nothing in return that permits rather than prevents its effectuality, even if the possibility itself cannot be fully realized in finite existence. (Cf. Derrida, The Gift of Death, 49–51.)

68. Søren Kierkegaard, Works of Love.

69. Søren Kierkegaard, Repetition: An Essay in Experimental Psychology, trans. Walter Lowrie (New York: Harper and Row, 1964).

70. Søren Kierkegaard, Either/Or, Vol. II (New York: Anchor Books), 116.

71. “The Other does not only appear in his face, as a phenomenon subject to the action and domination of a freedom.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.