There is no need to justify the
experience of the ordinary as moments of encounter with beauty, but
in a class on "Postmodern Aesthetics" at University of
Cincinnati, we read Heidegger's "On Being and Time"1
and his exposition of the unearthing of an ordinary object, coming
forth in its being, and simply revealing its existence as such - this
sense of being connects with truth of it's being there. Before we can
speak of what something is, we need to understand that
it is.
How do we then relate to other
'being'? To what extent do we understand anything of their existence,
and how may we know what they are? In my rational mind I want to seek
a system of thought that can satisfy my quest; and yet I stare into
my own limitation. The question is not new. Descartes looked to
confirm his own existence by a rational introspection, and he bases
his a priori premise about his own being in "Je pence, donc
je suis", or more formally "Cogito, ergo sum."
Kant distinguishes between "das Ding an sich"
and " das Ding für mich", which is clearly setting
certain limits for our cognition. However, Kant also verifies the
existence of the the thing in itself, since it is in such an
encounter that we realize our own being, our own existence. For him,
then there is something outside of myself which confirms me. ( When
I, in the darkness of the night, on my way to the loo, hit my little
toe on an object - like my sons' weight training tool - it hurts! So
the heavy metal object confirmed my own being by the pain I can not
deny.)
We relate to objects. We relate to
people - and that is a whole other ball park. That is one I am always
working on. Presently I reflect on Egil Wyller and Emanuel Levinas'
contributions in how we relate in interdependence, and how important
love is Naturally, I see the whole matter in a Christian world view,
and my primary source is the daily interaction with God and his Word.
I am because God is. I exist in
his kingdom because he redeemed me. His kingdom is from now
and to eternity; and I may live forever. More than anything
does this relationship constitute the basis for how I live in
relations to my fellow beings. I have experienced love and
forgiveness; I have been corrected, challenged in my egoism, I have
seen truth; I have stumbled and been raised up; and I live in God's
creative and powerful hands. This relationship is dynamic, mutual,
but not on even terms. It is a father/child, a master/servant type
relationship - where God is one who knows, and I may be an
apprentice.
1Sein
und Zeit
Interesting. So, as far as I have understood it, you suggest that we need to understand that something exists before talking about it as to what it really is. I suppose that you take "understanding" to be "recognizing" in the sense that you recognize the existence of, say, God. But this recognition is, I think, no different than recognizing the immediate environment, say, my pants I am wearing or the hair on my head - albeit they are sensory experiences - but, I do think, God is also, dare I suggest, detected by our senses! This may seem scandalous to our Realist readers, but is in every way just as legitimate a clam as the sensory perception of my pants (not underwear you English people!) and the hair on my head. There is, in humanity, that keen sense of the divine as "an other", some one, a person, that is perceived by our spiritual feelers (sensory devises). So, our recognition of God is in our innate capacity to recognize him as it is our, my, capacity to recognize the pants I am wearing and that there is hair on my head.
SvarSlettI am sure that our Realist friends would object strongly to such a frighting and seemingly pie-in-the-sky suggestion. "Spiritual feelers" - I must be off my rocker! Well, I don't think so. I think that God is perceived just as we perceive relationships with other people. That invisible, dare I suggest spiritual, bond that connects people to each other and to that other person, namely, God. That people have relationships is perfectly acceptable, no one doubts that (perhaps some extreme determinists), but to have a sense, or at least the capacity, of relationship with God is evident in history and in contemporary times. No intense investigation needed here - just look around you. Religion, one of the foundational building blocks of humanity is every where. To deny that there is a sense of the divine apart from us is living in denial. It is evident introspectively (reflecting on relationships) as it is retrospectively (reflecting of personal or communal history) that God is, he is as we are, or better yet we are as he is – a relational person.
God is not a metal concept that needs arguing for or against, he is a person, albeit "an other" person, but a person nonetheless. Contemporary debate about God's existence is largely the death-throws of the "enlightenment project". It is shown that one cannot prove or disprove God's existence because you always start from the conclusion of existence or nonexistence, which is just bad argumentation. In fact it is indicative of the narrative in which they find themselves and when these two narratives clash they use what they have, i.e. "enlightenment tools". In short, it is really just a western phenomena to use reason condescendingly to prove/disprove God. So, unoriginally at that, I suggest God is not a mental movement, a philosophical concept, or psychological projection but a person, as you and I, albeit a different person, but a person nonetheless. God is not someone who is us but analogous to us and we analogous to him, yet not univocally so. So, there is, must be, a givenness to God as to “that he is” – as there is a givenness to each other as we sense him and each other with that sense of relationship – the sense of the divine.
“That God is” should not be a problem, but “what he is”, or better yet “who he is” is where our investigation leads us; this is where the battle begins.
Hjertelig takk for responsen din, Petter! Du gir uttrykk for egen tenkning:) To continue in English: I think you are right on, and I find the kick in the leg to the limits Enlightenment ideals have imposed on our relations to God justified. We do not limit God, but we know him because He has revealed himself to us, and is revealing himself to us. We meet Him as the Other - do I sense a reflection of Levinas' thoughts here, or Buber? Anyway, the meeting between God and his child is where true meaning is found. Hm. That made me wonder about the connection between words, between signs in our language and the way Derrida talks about meaning - found in the relationship between words...
SvarSlett