Benjamin’s Profane Uses of Theology: The Invisible Organon
Invisible, but suggestive and fruitful; deprived of any reference to doctrine or ultimate assertive foundations, but nevertheless used in Benjamin like written images, crystallized as “images of thought„; as doctrinally mute as it is heuristically audible, Benjamin’s us...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2019-02-01
|
| Series: | Religions |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/10/2/93 |
| _version_ | 1819001600346161152 |
|---|---|
| author | Francisco Naishtat |
| author_facet | Francisco Naishtat |
| author_sort | Francisco Naishtat |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Invisible, but suggestive and fruitful; deprived of any reference to doctrine or ultimate assertive foundations, but nevertheless used in Benjamin like written images, crystallized as “images of thought„; as doctrinally mute as it is heuristically audible, Benjamin’s use of theology reminds us of the ironical use that Jorge Luis Borges himself made of theology and metaphysics as part of his own poetic forms. As such, these images of thought are located both in the place of philosophical use and in the one of methodological cunning or <i>Metis</i>, across the various levels of the corpus: a metaphysics of experience, literary criticism, philosophy of language, theory of history and Marxism. Therefore, accepting that <i>criticism</i> (<i>Kritik</i>) is the visible <i>organon</i> and the <i>object</i> of Benjaminian philosophy, is not theology, then, its <i>invisible organon</i>? What seems to be particular to Benjamin, however, is the agonistic but nevertheless heuristic way in which he intends to use theology in order to upset, disarray, and deconstruct the established philosophy, and specially its dominant trends in the field of the theory of history: historicism, positivism, and the evolutionary Hegelian⁻Marxist philosophy of history. In this article we try to demonstrate how this theological perspective is applied to a Benjaminian grammar of time. We conclude agonistically, confronting the resulting Benjaminian notion of historical past against Heiddeger’s own vision of historical time. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-20T22:51:47Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-54e6deb547064a37bc38f5b23d1e4dbb |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2077-1444 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-20T22:51:47Z |
| publishDate | 2019-02-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Religions |
| spelling | doaj.art-54e6deb547064a37bc38f5b23d1e4dbb2022-12-21T19:24:13ZengMDPI AGReligions2077-14442019-02-011029310.3390/rel10020093rel10020093Benjamin’s Profane Uses of Theology: The Invisible OrganonFrancisco Naishtat0Instituto de Investigaciones Gino Germani, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Uriburu 950, 6º Piso, Ciudad de Buenos Aires C1114AAD, ArgentinaInvisible, but suggestive and fruitful; deprived of any reference to doctrine or ultimate assertive foundations, but nevertheless used in Benjamin like written images, crystallized as “images of thought„; as doctrinally mute as it is heuristically audible, Benjamin’s use of theology reminds us of the ironical use that Jorge Luis Borges himself made of theology and metaphysics as part of his own poetic forms. As such, these images of thought are located both in the place of philosophical use and in the one of methodological cunning or <i>Metis</i>, across the various levels of the corpus: a metaphysics of experience, literary criticism, philosophy of language, theory of history and Marxism. Therefore, accepting that <i>criticism</i> (<i>Kritik</i>) is the visible <i>organon</i> and the <i>object</i> of Benjaminian philosophy, is not theology, then, its <i>invisible organon</i>? What seems to be particular to Benjamin, however, is the agonistic but nevertheless heuristic way in which he intends to use theology in order to upset, disarray, and deconstruct the established philosophy, and specially its dominant trends in the field of the theory of history: historicism, positivism, and the evolutionary Hegelian⁻Marxist philosophy of history. In this article we try to demonstrate how this theological perspective is applied to a Benjaminian grammar of time. We conclude agonistically, confronting the resulting Benjaminian notion of historical past against Heiddeger’s own vision of historical time.https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/10/2/93invisibilityheresydisguisedisruptiveMarxismmessianismhistorical timepastredemptivenesslanguage |
| spellingShingle | Francisco Naishtat Benjamin’s Profane Uses of Theology: The Invisible Organon Religions invisibility heresy disguise disruptive Marxism messianism historical time past redemptiveness language |
| title | Benjamin’s Profane Uses of Theology: The Invisible Organon |
| title_full | Benjamin’s Profane Uses of Theology: The Invisible Organon |
| title_fullStr | Benjamin’s Profane Uses of Theology: The Invisible Organon |
| title_full_unstemmed | Benjamin’s Profane Uses of Theology: The Invisible Organon |
| title_short | Benjamin’s Profane Uses of Theology: The Invisible Organon |
| title_sort | benjamin s profane uses of theology the invisible organon |
| topic | invisibility heresy disguise disruptive Marxism messianism historical time past redemptiveness language |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/10/2/93 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT francisconaishtat benjaminsprofaneusesoftheologytheinvisibleorganon |