Heidegger and Theology

Heidegger and Theology Author(s): Hans Jonas Source: The Review of Metaphysics, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Dec., 1964), pp. 207-233 Published by: Philosophy Education Society Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20124053 . Accessed: 16/02/2011 08:52 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=pes. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Philosophy Education Society Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Review of Metaphysics.

http://www.jstor.org

ARTICLES

HEIDEGGER AND THEOLOGY* HANS JONAS

JL he problem

of oBJEGTiFiGATiON, and with it that of reversing or toWestern it, was bequeathed theology from its partially unmaking It Greek logos. in the of the word with the Biblical origin mating even older. and is thus as old as Christian theology itself, slightly and which parentage would be dominant was in the demonstrated very first offspring two A telling symbol of what of the in Philo Judaeus. to the Biblical word is through him and his successors happened he evolves from an unwittingly supplied by an allegory which of the name "Israel." (Heidegger was not the first to etymology

Which

side of the double

recessive encounter

in

the

by masterful etymologizing.) underpin philosophical propositions The name is taken to mean "He who sees God," and Jacob's acquir from progress ing this name is said to represent the God-seeker's the stage of hearing to that of seeing, made possible by the The allegory falls into of ears into eyes. miraculous conversion the general pattern of Philo's views on "knowing God." These rest on the Platonic is intuition, being

relation to genuine of beholding. sight, when extended into the religious sphere, determines also the highest and most authentic relation to God?and with it also to the word of God.1 To this Philo indeed assigns a nature which makes vision, * address

This

delivered paper was at the Second Consultation

eminence

form slightly abridged on Hermeneutics, devoted in Contemporary Speaking in

This

and

of Non-Objectifying Thinking School vened by the Graduate 1

that the most

supposition

of Drew

University,

April

9-11,

as

the opening to the Problem

Theology, 1964.

con

are according to volume and margin which in ten volumes, edition, Library text of Philonis Greek Alexandrini the standard Opera quae super reproduces and Paul Wendland Cohn (Berlin, sunt, ed. by Leopold 1896-1930). . . . the eyes is the fairest of all the senses with "Seeing with butjseeing the ruling of the soul excels all other faculties: this is the insight principle The

(phronesis), science

of

gain

to Philo

References of

number

the

Judaeus

Loeb

Classical

vision

of

all

that

the mind.

exists

in nature

He but

not only to has who succeeded to behold also the Father and

208

HANS intellectual

i.e.,

the voice" Creator God

of

there

the all, has is nothing;

ing eye of his

not

soul may

attained

to the

and whoever pray

for this

summit has

its

audition,

genuine

"All the people saw "Highly significant,

for higher of blessedness, than Him thus with the intend

reached

stage

to persist

and

last"

(De Abrahamo,

Note how God is here included as the highest being in the rank

VI 57 f. ). order

and

contemplation,

to the phrase in Exodus, Referring 20: (Exodus, 18), he comments:

criterion.

JONAS

even as a culmination, is precisely the inclusion, set by this visual the terms Under approach. a definite is "the being that God one" (6 wv) assumes claim the equally but clash with that emphasized

of all being; and this to the correlate

ontological approach

the

statement cannot

which meaning He transcends

all

This determination. of God's ontological meaning manifest in Philo's him becomes "the most "being" calling perfect good" IV 180). in De Confusione Platoni (xEXetoTaxov ?ya^?v, Linguarum, e.g., of the good is the highest itself") (or "the good cally understood, category as into a representation of the beingness of all beings hypostasized being such. to specific essence" (for essence "beyond being), Although pertains or the form of forms?and as such it is yet the essence of all essence, the an eros which terminal of the its goal: in it reaches object intuiting out from the structure of being ontological principle, separated in metaphysical it is by its very nature the correlate of vision, to be found but in pure Now when Philo Setopt'a and nowhere theory. to be "the most declares his God the him and thus makes perfect good" of the hierarchy of all being, culmination in line with the original he stays impersonal as a whole

Greek does

"visual" that mean

perfect good a having that venture may bonum (e.g., appetition, presence:

and with determined the ontology approach to God, for man's for the relation i.e., is the end-good, the final goal of a desire turns into a being; and the mode of having the

statement

But what by it. life of pietyP The

for possession, for is .beholding. We as the summum is defined that wherever God as final object then he is also understood of an

by Augustine), as the potential ultimate i.e., and then the most valid relation

satisfaction

of

a

desire

for

a

of piety must be vision, which of the object's the purest mode con Philo grants presence. Accordingly, ceives the way of piety, as a progress the way toward of per being God, a decisive in which the passage from hearing to seeing marks fection, point. the handmaid's the "merely is Ishmael, son, Typologically, type, hearing" as the contrasted with the true-born, et (Cf. De Fuga Israel, type. seeing V 208.) And the elevation of Jacob to the himself of lnventione, grade Israel is a change-over from the condition to that of seeing: of hearing is the name for learning and progressing, for the powers that i.e., on hearing; is the name but Israel for perfection, for it means what could be more in the realm of the truth than 'seeing God'?and perfect to see the truly existent one?" cf. also De Migratione III 82; (De Ebrietate, "Jacob

depend

IV 47 ff.) The transition takes place through breath converts the Logos the eyes: "By a divine "ascetic" who wrestles with the angel) into eyes, thereby into a new type called the seeing one" Israel, (De Somniis,

Abrahami, ears into

the

conversion

ears

of Jacob

transforming i, V 129).

of (the him

209

HEIDEGGER AND THEOLOGY

for human voice is to be heard, but God's voice is in truth to be seen. WhyP Because but that which God speaks is not words Dec? the better which discriminates the than ear" works, eye (De are what God finished realities, logo, VII, 47) .2 "Works," or what either his his he, acting, puts "speaks," i.e., by being by our eyes. And the finished or perfected is objectively pre can sent and itself in its eidos. But only be looked at; it presents the word of God is primarily call and understood, Biblically are not looked at but heard?and and commands command, obeyed or disobeyed. that this is not the antithesis Now it is obvious before

Philo

The logos he contrasts with the seen one as is the apophantic the (not logos which imperative)

in mind.

has

'merely" heard on

pronounces

objects,

i.e.,

on

in

"visibles"

the widest

sense,

and

for a seeing to fulfill and redeem its symbolic intention. Such logos about a state of things, which substitutes for authentic presence by meaningful is received signs, by a pro visional "mere hearing" which by its own sense strains toward its own overcoming in the seeing of the signified content. A more thus

calls

indeed

perfect, archetypal logos, exempt from the human duality of sign and thing and therefore not bound to the forms of speech, would not require the mediation of hearing but is immediately beheld by as the truth of things. the mind In other words, the antithesis the argued by Philo lies as a whole within is to say it is no real antithesis but a differ to the ideal of immediate, intuitive presence of the object. It is with a view to this ideal that the "hearing" as its deputizing, here opposed to "seeing" is conceived, namely, as and not mode, authentic, provisional something basically other of seeing and hearing realm of "seeing"?that ence of degree relative

than

to seeing here the turn from hearing seeing. Accordingly, a a an is to from limited progress envisaged merely adequate knowl 2

Cf.

De

IV

47

ff.

teaches that, "Scripture of its criterion the sense are seen the words of God of in the manner (statements, hearing, logoi) . . .' saw the voice. for it says 'all the people divided For the speech light; . . . but into noun and verb and all the members of the sentence is audible . . . the voice of God which is beheld is visible. by the eye of the soul statements sense of sight Therefore God's have for their criterion. the soul's The divine a pure communication is of pure, unmixed which soul Logos of sight." beholds byacuteness

whereas

the

Abrahami, Migratione voice of mortal creatures

has

for

HANS JONAS

210

the same project of knowledge. But edge of the same and within we have the right to take Philo's parable of perfection through the of ears into eyes on our part as a parable for that turn conversion to seeing which he himself and after him Christian from hearing to in their primary of underwent (not Gnosticism) theology speak turn from the original hearing of the call of constitution?the will God to the theoretical for vision the living, non-worldly of the supernatural, In this sense the "conversion of divine truths. a symbol of the first rank. ears into eyes" can be considered Taking a cue from Philo we may ask: If the adoption of the was a misfortune from Greek philosophy for "seeing" approach or does the that of theology, repudiation overcoming approach a conceptual means in a contemporary for philosophy provide to reform itself, to become more theology adequate Can it thus lead to a new alliance between theology one with Aristotelianism ophy after, e.g., the medieval

to its task? and philos has broken

The question assumes that some of the nature of reality the elucidation of the nature of thinking about reality sirable and even necessary for theology.

use of philosophy, i.e., of secular and thought, by in secular thought, is de This assumption must be is by about things divine,

downP

as the logos since theology, granted, the discursive, definition in some sense scientific, elucidation of the contents of faith (not, of course, of the internal structure of faith, which would be phenomenology) and thus, for one thing, comes under

the

rules

and

norms

of

elucidation

and

discourse

as

such;

and since the contents

of faith comprise the dealings of God with the world and with man, the elucidation of the mundane and human side of this polarity must be informed by a knowledge of what world and man are, and philosophy is supposed to provide such knowledge. It would then follow that that philosophy is most to is most i.e., adequate theology which adequate to being, is most nearly true?by which the criteria of philosophy itself, But since for a decision i.e., by the the criteria of secular reason. on this the theologians cannot wait for the consensus of philos nor even trust its ophers, necessarily authority, they may be guided in their choice by the appeal of affinity, the lessons of past expe rience with pline,

philosophical and by appraising

liaisons, the present needs of their disci which is most helpful to the philosophy

AND THEOLOGY HEIDEGGER

its own

task, or least dangerous

of theology's

discharge

least

genuineness,

211

least

seductive,

to its own

trust, any

alienating?by

or

to all

On all of these considerations, but as little as possible by fashion. a of deal to exercise do well would the these counts great theologian in the face of caution and mistrust. tempting similarity: Especially is the otherness of philos what theology needs in this relationship On this I need not elaborate before a ophy, not its similarity. of relationship the experiment audience. However, theological and the one choice closed is abstention. itself is inescapable, Thus, in the shown to contemporary the openness thought by theology present

it was

experiment?as

at

shown

all

times?is

to

be

wel

comed.

then, on the count of affinity, the appeal of Heidegger's can to the Christian at least of his language, theologian thought, the philo not be denied. He brings to the fore precisely what or of call moment withheld?the had tradition ignored sophical First

over

against

that

of

over

of mission

form,

presence,

against

of

over against object, being grasped over against surveying, of event even the humility of reception of response over against concept, over against the pride of autonomous the reason, and generally At of the subject. stance of piety over against the self-assertion side of "hearing" cue, the suppressed last, to resume the Philonic a the of after "seeing" and the spell gets hearing long ascendency and Christian it cast upon of objectification which thought; no turn blinded the its eyes, longer by metaphysical thought may into ears and so to vision, to this quarter to have them reconverted hear,

and

perhaps

make

heard,

its

own

message

anew.

on the prima facie evidence it familiar hears must there that evangelical be granted theology sounds and can feel more at home with this than with some other or traditional But isn't it perhaps varieties of modern thought. Or so it seems

to some.

And

at home there ? Are the familiar sounds legitimate there ? Is theology perhaps lured by them onto alien ground made all the more dangerous by the mysterious the inspirational tone, masking, so much more difficult to discern than its paganism which make too much

secular philosophies? that of straightforward, identifiably Let us ask what the prima facie affinity here really means. is holds that "thinking" To take a well-known example, Heidegger

212

HANS

a "thanking" (anf?nglich) "secondary," and science.

for the favor of being. or "essential" thinking, derivative (abk?nftig) the

Whereas

He

asserts

which

he

JONAS

this of "primal" to the opposes of metaphysics

thinking of the last two

is that of the language of essential discourse, thinking has the objectifying The Biblical or generally religious quality of thanksgiving. ring on of these statements is unmistakable. But does this consonance language

from the philosopher's arise part independent philosophical or was the Biblical model itself a factor in the reflection? reflection, I think, there can be no doubt that the latter is the case. We are fact and always known simply in the presence of the well-known in Heidegger's that there is much secularized Christianity thought. This was evident from the beginning, from Sein und Zeit on; and the strenuous assertion and by notwithstanding by Heidegger as guilt, others on his behalf that such concepts care, anxiety, of

call

resolution, conscience, Verfallenheit, authenticity-un no ontic have a purely ontological with meaning are meant and least of all connotation, psychological)

authenticity, (e.g.,

the

morally,

reasonable

without

observer,

into

entering

the

ques

tion of subjective honesty, will not let such disclaimers keep him to from giving tradition its due. then acknowledge, He will that secular does elements repeat, Heidegger's thinking embody But does that justify saying that there is from Christian thought. an

autonomous

between

parallel

the

the one

two?

a

or

correspondence

cor

can offer

to the aid and comfort to that of faith? In the case of Moses other, the side of knowledge case before Philo?there and Plato?the could have been an inde that therefore

relation?

pendent

and

therefore

relevant

or

correlation,

complementation,

or

mutual but in the case of dependence with which confirmation; we deal here the situation is logically different, and the invocation even falsifying. of concordance is spurious, invocation Such to be a temptation for some theologians. For theology too, not to be outdone, now wishes to be "primal" thinking, though by its very nature, being derivative from a revelation, it ought not even to entertain such a wish. But since Heidegger, too, speaks seems

of

revelation,

tion-dependent even identical.

viz.,

of

and

the

self-unveiling

of being,

"primal" thinking?seem Does not, as one theologian

these

to be (Heinrich

two?revela

compatible, Ott) argues

AND THEOLOGY HEIDEGGER

213

in support of such concordance, Anselm of Canterbury pray as follows: "Teach me to seek thee and show thyself to me as I seek; for I am not able to seek thee unless thou teachest, nor to find thee unless thou showest (Proslogion, thyself" Chap. I) ? Does not as to God here relation described theology's by Anselm precisely correspond Is not here as response

to thinking's relation to being as seen by Heidegger? the "fate-laden" character of thinking, (geschicklich) of being that is given to it to think, to the unveiling

terms of theological stated in the analogous thinking? adequately a special and applied case as it were of what has now philo to be the general nature of "essential been shown sophically is to which To thus the indicated, speak thought"? temptation some theologians succumb.3 But isn't this putting things upside Shouldn't one say at best that thinking's down? relation to being as seen by Heidegger to to God? relation corresponds theology's of the latter could not be transposed And that characteristics into was terms better than in done Hei i.e., unbelieving philosophical, doctrine

degger's

of

the

fate-laden

character

of

thinking

...

re

. . .

even this would of being? Whether be a sponse unveiling true statement remains to be seen. But the turning around of the as such is by no means amatter of indifference (as one relationship say

might

"correspondence

is correspondence

from

whatever

end

I start"), for it reverses the whole locus of the standard of ade what has to be measured For once, up to by what. quacy?of is not, as so often, theology's this point, the situation trying to from the domain of philosophy and in the process appropriate from the being appropriated by it, but philosophy's appropriating into its debt?whatever domain of theology and coming that may concern and need not This is the philosopher's do to philosophy. But neither must he lose sight of the true the theologian. of I am sorry, as a mere child of the things. interdependence to to to have this instead of world, say theologians: theology's or corroboration validation for itself in what has been finding trouble

3 volume p. 47. source. cussion

and Theology The Later Heidegger in Theology, (New Frontiers and John B. Cobb I), ed. by James M. Robinson 1963), (New York, account from of Ott's above The is taken this argument given an excellent This record of the German-American dis volume, on the subject will as Robinson-Cobb. henceforth be quoted

Cf.

214

HANS

JONAS

from itself, the real case is that philosophy must examine from theology. the philosophical borrowing validity of Heidegger's its result may consid This is not our present task, and although the erably lessen the theoretical prestige of those elements which to it still wishes leave them the may theologian reappropriate, borrowed

articulation of the conceptual treatment. But philosophical his own original he re-imports

usefulness under

which

they have received must ask, theologian what have you product:

the

before done with my little ones? in what company did you bring them children? can I take them back up? are they still my uncorrupted I will I take with them? from you? and what, take them, Now, if "Can I take from the them back crucial question though you?" is a question and strictly for the Christian of decision, theologian, not

for

me

to

the

answer,

other

questions,

especially

the

last:

if you decide to take them, will you have to take with "What, them?" is a question of fact and logical necessity, and can be con who has a knowledge, sidered and answered by the philosopher And here I may albeit a merely one, of both sides. objective one to at least modest virtue of objectifying point provisionally to will it and thus, that bring light incompatibilities speech, viz., theology to speak of heresy. came to adopt the Judaeo Now, if we first ask how Heidegger in the first the of guilt and Christian vocabulary place, vocabulary e.g.,

enable

conscience

and

call

and

voice

and

hearing

and

response

and

we could and thanksgiving, mission and shepherd and revelation the claim?if of course not take seriously it it were made?that was simply suggested by the phenomena themselves and represents No mere analysis will the result of their unprejudiced analysis. ever yield those concepts and that language (and we shall deal later account of thinking hails the fact that not even Heidegger's from an "analysis" of thinking as it is so often called in the Amer At any rate the Biblical is no mere ican discussion). ring

with

demands of linguistic by the independent compelled and at best counting in favor of the ancient the subject matter in any case not be Hei But this answer would predecessor. own not in with would fit his very conception of and degger's as the of In accord with fate-laden character thinking thinking. coincidence

the self-un veiling

history

of being

itself, he might

rather

say that

AND THEOLOGY HEIDEGGER

215

the Christian of being laid down in it, speech, and the disclosure our are via our tradition an integral part of the fate to which must and that therefore the is genuine language thinking respond, as his thinking to the task as conditioned response by history. Some such answer probably comes close to the truth of the matter, even though the role of free choice; and to some it underplays to extent philosophy has gained from this opening of its universe features which it has all too long ignored. But the theologian has no cause to rejoice in this endorsement of his cherished heirlooms As I understand it?and of course it is by an influential thinker. somewhat awkward for me to act as spokesman for or defender of should resist the the cause of Christian theology?the theologian as a his matter to treat of historic fate, and thus message attempt as part of a comprehensive as one element and thus becoming, a as in and itself others tradition, among divisible, something in part and left in part, ready for the pickings of the one can take half of his story ask whether He must without the whole?as he will in time have to ask falsifying can be assimilated in Heidegger's conversely whether philosophy But most of all he must resist part without taking in the whole. And herewith I come to Heidegger's the idea of fate itself. assimilable

unbeliever.

doctrine.

Let us

start with

the idea of fate.4 It looms large in Hei in and his idea of lot is thinking, degger's thinking. Thinking's cast by being. to what and it speaks Being thought, speaks is lot. But and when it is decreed what, how, thought's speaks by the history of being and is this history as the history of its own or concealing. And as this is not at the thinker's com unveiling as genitivus is at mand, thinking about being?which subjectivus the same time also the thinking of being its self itself, namely a fate-like character clearing taking place inman?has (or, is "fate laden" : geschicklich). The fateful nature of thought is its depen is sent to it, and the sending dence upon what issues from the 4 common

Heidegger's Schicksal:

he wishes brute term.

force,

to rescue which

term is Geschick to the more in preference form from the root word schicken, by this derivative or the element of "sending" from that of mere "decree" common in the average of the more predominates usage German

216

HANS JONAS

on this the secular philosopher Now of being. history comment will that thinking redundant is precisely expression) effort not to be at the mercy of fate, an effort to save or achieve

(a an the

in the face of the pres freedom of insight (once called "reason") sure of being and of our own condition?an effort enjoying the not chance of at least partial success. himself, Heidegger quite at times seems to appeal to precisely this aspect of the consistent, and self-responsibility of thought?as he when power, nobility, must to holds that genuine arise in a new openness philosophy an openness we can only (like that of the pre-Socratics!), being achieve as we free ourselves from the distorting conceptualizations imposed dictions committed must

contra Although by our fateful history.5 in the shelter of primal those thinking, to the uncomfortable exactions of objective thought of questions. Is this "freeing our here a number

on our vision count

raise

for little

in Heidegger's is taking place, e.g., selves," which presumably an action that itself is free from fate and not itself own thought, abolished in the "self Is fate overcome, transcended, of fate? a gift of of it from the is fate? Or itself impositions past freeing" then

fate?and

to

our

chosen

because

generation,

the

time

was

from all generations fulfilled? because the chances withheld since to us? be the fall from pristine Greek grace are fatefully granted cause emerging at last from the long forgetfulness of being decreed own of which is the its fate, we are again self-concealing by being, at last favored with

event again not of being only its unveiling?an as to much as to us? The latest turn in but also happening being case we?we of all people!?would In this be in a state its fate? advent in the emergence of primal thinking ushers of grace, whose Or is this possibility in a new apostolic age. of laying hold of the to every generation and tiny corner of it?open in with success? and the element of fate each, changing attempted the historical situation is?and is only how helpful or hindering of course the incalculable chance of there arising a great thinker: on instead of tackling the task as best one things futile to meditate no better off than other In that view we are in principle can? truth?some

ages nor worse: 5

Cf. Cobb's

it is up to us as it was comments

in Robinson-Cobb,

up to them.

p.

188.

And we

are

AND THEOLOGY HEIDEGGER

217

hardly the proper judges as to whether we have succeeded better. I notice I have slipped into a language which knows of no history of being but only of a history of finite human attempts to get at being, at

viz.,

of

knowledge

revocable,

being?a

knowledge so far I must

However,

imperfect.

always not

provisional, move outside

frame of reference if I am to stay in discourse the Heideggerian with its theological devotees. If, then, it is to be fate, are we?as a last variety?to as working out its own destiny, deify history as its organs?if not in the Hegelian sense, using human minds our present state of grace would the where the of phase equal or some of deter Absolute then other logic by illogic Spirit, mination? for the philosopher. All these are questions But as regards the theologian?or should I rather say the believer?may I for a on seems me it moment to his behalf? Then that the speak and therefore the Christian Christian, theologian, must reject any to the status of his own such idea of fate and history as extending is said to be saved from the mandate. For one thing the Christian in the early books. So I remember of fate. power reading saved him Second and more that which so, was, by the under standing of faith as distinct from not an event of the world and ever to become destined fate or all dicta of fate and invalidating

of the world, the understanding an not thus event of fate, nor part of fate itself, but an event

the words which fate overruling Nor including the words of self-unveiling being. speaks to man, I should itself a mere unveiling: is it, thirdly, the crucifixion, Must I say say, was not in the first place an event of language. It seems so. For I read: this to Christian "[The theologians? as

words],

answer

to

the word

of

being,

are

in

a fate-like

manner

on the part of being. It is . . . fate that they speak as . . . Our answer to the as is true This of do. well. theology they . . . Existence is linguistic. call of revelation itself (is) essentially . . . The . . . is our essential answer our of faith linguistic. speech

determined

to the call of God's revelation, not merely of our essential And since answer."6 6 der Weg

Heinrich

und Sein. Ott, Denken der Theologie 1959), (Z?rich,

Der p.

190

the inadequate the call, itself

Weg f.

Martin

expression speechless,

Heideggers

und

218

HANS JONAS

gains

one

speech

only

in our

encounters

answer,

there

in

or

this

ensues

the

as

"Just

parallel:

that

con historic fate-laden being . . . so Christian is the fate ceptualization, historic, just language laden medium in which God's word speaks to us. . . . Existence is itself essentially and faith takes place within our lan linguistic is our answer to God" guage, which (Robinson-Cobb, p. 55). and quite consistently, is the Bible itself taken as one Accordingly, "the Biblical answer to the word linguistic record of such answer, of God" (ibid., p. 54). But I find more than human answer in the Bible, taken by its own claim. I hear questions to man, such as these: are where is where ; "Adam, "Cain, you?" (Genesis 3:9) : Abel your brother?" this not the is of voice (Genesis 4:9) being; and "He has told you, O man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you: what else but to do justice, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?" This requires (Micah 6:8). more

than

a

answer.

linguistic

as to Heidegger's of unveiling, being, it is an occurrence a fate-laden happening so was the F?hrer and the upon thought: call of German an unveiling of something destiny under him: in every sense: neither indeed, a call of being all right, fate-laden then nor now did Heidegger's thought provide a norm by which to decide how to answer such calls?linguistically or otherwise: no norm except depth, resolution, and the sheer force of being that ever suspicious of this world, But to the believer, issues the call. mean the and the prince of this world. force, may depth abyss, As if the devil were not part of the voice of being! Heidegger's own answer is, to the shame of philosophy, on record and, I hope, But

not

fact (whose apart from this personal is the however, immense), significance, philosophical theologian if he keeps faith with himself, cannot, accept any system of his forgotten.7

7

The

record

But

is collected zu

Dokumente

degger. following students

quite

from quotation of the University

in:

Guido

seinem Leben a proclamation

und

of Freiburg "Not theorems and 'ideas' example. F?hrer himself and alone is the present ever deeper law. to know: Learn that demands p.

135

decision, f.)

and

every

action,

Schneeberger, Denken.

by Heidegger in November, the rules be

Nachlese (Bern,

1962).

(then Rector) serves 1933,

zu Hei The to the as an

of your The being. its and future German reality on each and every from now thing Heil Hitler!" (op. cit., responsibility. and

219

HEIDEGGER AND THEOLOGY

as a frame to integrate his torical fate or reason or eschatology or Comte 's or Marx's or Spengler 's or it Hegel's trust into?be the simple reason that it is about "this world," Heidegger's?for b xo