جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « Marion » در نشریات گروه « فلسفه و کلام »

This study compares Ahmad Ghazali and Jean-Luc Marion's thoughts about love using a descriptive-analytical method. Despite the differences between these two thinkers in terms of thought and time, the content of their thoughts is similar in some ways. In writing Savaneh al-Oshshaq, Ghazali uses the method of esoteric commentary to discover the mysteries of Sufi, and Marion uses Heidegger's phenomenology to explain the hidden angles of the love phenomenon. According to the fact that orientalists like Henry Corbin consider the method of phenomenology in the occident tradition to be in line with the esoteric commentary (Revelation of the Veiled or Kashf al-Mahjoub of Muslim mystics), the comparison of Marion's phenomenological approach and Ghazali's interpretation seems logical in a way. These two thinkers talk about the univocality of the concept of love and do not divide love into metaphorical and real aspects. Therefore, Ghazali and Marion consider love to have the same meaning, whether in human relationships or in connection with God. Marion's main goal is to refute the metaphysical dominance over theology and negate the conceptual and like idol attitude about God, and Ghazali interprets the lived experience of mystics, crosses the narrow fence of philosophical concepts, and uses the language of allegory and mystification to explain love.

This paper examines Marion's approach to Aquinas ontology. Marion shows that Aquinas is not an onto-theologist by showing the similarity of Aquinas' analogy with the Apophatic theology of Pseudo-Dionysius. In addition to this negative approach, Marion uses the phenomenology of love as a positive alternative for communicating with God. In his opinion, the erotic experience is an icon or image of a relationship with God. He considers divine revelation as the intersection of saturated and iconic phenomena. In analogy, we realize the absolute difference between the existence of God (esse) and  creatures (being) and the non-univocity of being, but there is univocity between the "love to God" and "love to human beings”. In addition to the phenomenological analysis of love as a basis for understanding God's relationship with the world and man, Marion is not unaware of the creationary and realistic aspect of love. Marion argues that, contrary to Heidegger's view, the call or invitation to the “event of appropriation”(ereignis) is subjective. In fact, Marion, instead of considering  Being as an impersonal affair, sees it as a transcendent subject that calls man to himself. Marion's theology can be the source of new insights for analytic philosophers of religion who pursue the ideals of necessity, totality, and objectivity, and who neglect the intuitive and moral experience of religion.

Onto-Theo-logy recognizes the simultaneous presence of ontology and theology in metaphysics. In Onto-Theo-logy, God, in his metaphysical conception, is a being among other beings with several positive attributes, such as the cause of the universe and cause of itself, and inherent, achievable, cognitive and namable essence for mankind. Heidegger claims that Metaphysics with its Onto-Theo-logical structure reduced God to a metaphysical notion that lacks any glory for worship and prayer. Thus, the main question of the essay is: Is Avicennian philosophy an Onto-Theo-logical structure? The founding of the research is as follows: First, unlike the theologians, the discussion of God in Avicennian philosophy holds in terms of His mode of existence. Therefore, the simultaneous presence of theology and ontology in the Avicennian philosophy would be excluded. Second, Heidegger's conception of metaphysics is false and confusing, and Avicennian philosophy is also metaphysics but does not consist of the metaphysical properties claimed by Heidegger. Third, although in philosophia prima Ibn Sina speaks of God as a being, he doesn't consider the existence as the truth of God; rather he reflects existence as the implications of the truth of God. To compensate for the cognitive limitations of mankind in metaphysics, he tries to philosophically use the inner possibilities of the teachings of the divinity. In this regard, instead of using the Onto-Theo-logy positive theology, he develops his philosophy based on a negative-positive metaphysic. Fourth, components and implications of Onto-Theo-logy by Heidegger and Marion, Assuming they are right, are not present in the philosophy of Avicenna. In other words, Avicenna's philosophy does not have an Onto-Theo-logical structure.

In this article, we analyze the approach of Gilson and Marion relation to Heidegger. In next step, we try to highlight the various aspects of Heidegger’s thought that is regarded by Gilson and Marion and also compare this two Neo-Thomistic thinkers’ views. Marion as a contemporary Neo-Thomist is influenced by Gilson. One nexus point of this two Neo-Thomistic thinkers is that they present some part of their view in contrast to Heideggerian ontology. Although they have critical encounter with Heidegger but in some aspects are influenced by him. Following of Heidegger, Marion advertise the slogan of the end of metaphysics but unlike Heidegger believes that Aquinas is not Onto-Theologist. But Gilson believes that the exit way of the difficulties of modernity is the metaphysics that its offspring and end is the pure act of being, so the ontology of Aquinas is most authentic metaphysics. In following of Gilson. Marion suggests that substantive approach of Descartes and Duns Scotus to Being lead to nihilistic attitude in contemporary era and for troubleshooting must notice to apophatic implications that is included in Analogy of Aquinas, in order that the traditional theology void of any metaphysical concepts will be provided.