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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Francisco Naishtat
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2019-02-01
Series:Religions
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/10/2/93
id doaj-54e6deb547064a37bc38f5b23d1e4dbb
record_format Article
spelling doaj-54e6deb547064a37bc38f5b23d1e4dbb2020-11-24T23:55:40ZengMDPI 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 &#8220;images of thought&#8222;; as doctrinally mute as it is heuristically audible, Benjamin&#8217;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&#8315;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&#8217;s own vision of historical time.https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/10/2/93invisibilityheresydisguisedisruptiveMarxismmessianismhistorical timepastredemptivenesslanguage
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Francisco Naishtat
spellingShingle Francisco Naishtat
Benjamin’s Profane Uses of Theology: The Invisible Organon
Religions
invisibility
heresy
disguise
disruptive
Marxism
messianism
historical time
past
redemptiveness
language
author_facet Francisco Naishtat
author_sort Francisco Naishtat
title Benjamin’s Profane Uses of Theology: The Invisible Organon
title_short 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_sort benjamin’s profane uses of theology: the invisible organon
publisher MDPI AG
series Religions
issn 2077-1444
publishDate 2019-02-01
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 &#8220;images of thought&#8222;; as doctrinally mute as it is heuristically audible, Benjamin&#8217;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&#8315;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&#8217;s own vision of historical time.
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
_version_ 1725461155235758080