"... the proposition "God is a being" itself appears as an idol, because it only returns the aim that, in advance, decides that every possible 'God', present or absent, in one way or another, has to be... But is it self-evident that God should have to be, hence to be as a being (supreme, plural - however one wants) in order to give himself as God?
But what indeed can permit and promise the attempt at a thinking of God without and outside of ontological difference? Indeed, to think outside of ontological difference eventually condemns one to be no longer able to think at all. But precisely, to be no longer able to think, when it is a question of God, indicates neither absurdity nor impropriety... By definition and decision, God, if he must be thought, can meet no theoretical space to his measure, because his measure exerts itself in our eyes as an excessiveness. Ontological difference itself, and hence also Being, become too limited..."
thoughts?
3 comments:
Man, I don't really know the context, but I'm just straight-up thinking of Jesus' parables concerning the Father and such. It seems that Jesus felt free to use analogy, story, himself, symbolism, etc. to reveal the Father's nature, and his own nature. I could be totally off here but that's my quick thought on the passage.
Does Marion deal with Barth at all?
Yes, I'm a Barthian. :-)
hehe... well, at least you admit it! ;-)
Yeah, David Tracy, in the foreward to the book, states that Barth and Marion have a shared approach... but Marion barely mentions Barth in the book. Not sure why.
Personally I think Marion is actually trying to go farther than Barth, philosophically, but having not read Barth in depth I can't say that for sure. I do know that Barth is far more explicitly Christocentric, which provides a balance, I think. Marion doesn't focus on that as much, perhaps for effect, but I think it's implicit.
Post a Comment