No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 September 2014
The critique of ontotheology undertaken by Heidegger and expended by Derrida calls into question not only the meaning but the possibility of God-language. In response, thinkers such as Kevin Hart have attempted to map out an area of non-metaphysical theology that draws on the resources of negative theology. Hart's work, The Trepass of the Sign, however, contains three significant ambiguities. First, he defines negative theology as a denial that God can be described using predicates, but in his text negative theology has a quasi-positive (rather than merely negative) role. Second, Hart contends that negative theology precedes positive theology, but in fact it seems to depend upon a prior affirmation of God. Third, Hart offers no rationale for negative theologians' use of the word “God.” Derrida writes that the only way out of negative theology's referential vacuity is prayer: which, he continues, mires that theology in metaphysics. However, if prayer is understood as agape rather than knowledge or supplication, a way through Hart's ambiguities might be found.
1 Thomas, R. S., Counterpoint (Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Bloodaxe Books, 1990), 45.Google Scholar
2 See, e.g., Taylor's, Mark C. influential work Erring: A Postmodern A/theology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar in which Taylor proclaims not only the death of God, but also the disappearance of the Self, the end of History, and the closure of the Book.
3 See Derrida, Jacques, Margins of Philosophy, trans Bass, Alan (ChicagoUniversity of Chicago press, 1982)Google Scholar, esp the chapter entitled “Différance”
4 A skeptical assessment of deconstruction can be found in Schmitz, Kenneth L, “Postmodern or Modern-Plus?” Communio 17 (Summer 1990) 152–66Google Scholar More positive engagements include the series of essays collected in Coward, Harold and Foshay, Toby, eds, Derrida and Negative Theology (AlbanyState University of New York Press, 1992)Google Scholar, and Winquist, Charles, Desiring Theology (ChicagoUniversity of Chicago Press, 1995)Google Scholar
6 A notable exception is Caputo, John, The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida (Bloomington Indiana University Press, 1997)Google Scholar
7 Hart, Kevin, The Trespass of the Sign: Deconstruction, Theology and Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 104.Google Scholar
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid., 176.
10 Ibid., 186.
11 Ibid., 193.
12 Ibid., 201.
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid., emphasis added.
15 Derrida, Jacques, “How to Avoid Speaking: Denials” in Coward, and Foshay, , eds., Derrida and Negative Theology, 77.Google Scholar
16 Hart, , The Trespass of the Sign, 202Google Scholar
17 Ibid
18 Ibid, emphasis added See also 104
19 Ibid, 182
20 Ibid, 269
21 Ibid, 268, emphasis added
22 Ibid., 269.
23 Ibid., 181.
24 Ibid., 175.
25 Ibid., 176.
26 Ibid., 177.
27 Ibid., 176.
28 Ibid., 103.
29 Ibid., 177.
30 Derrida, , “How to Avoid Speaking,” 81.Google Scholar
31 Ibid., 110. Emphasis added.
32 Ibid.
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid.
35 Ibid. 111.
36 Marion, Jean-Luc, God without Being, trans. Carlson, Thomas A. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), 76.Google Scholar
37 Ibid., 106.
38 Ibid.,46.
39 Ibid.,49.
40 Ibid., 107.
41 Ibid., 173.
42 See the poem by R. S. Thomas at the beginning of this article.
43 On the issue of whether or not a gift demands a reciprocal offering, see Milbank's, John “Can a Gift Be Given?” Modern Theology 11 (01 1995): 119–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Milbank argues, as do I, that Marion has not thought through the implications of the unilateral character of the gift. However, contrary to the argument of the present essay, Milbank sees Derrida's account of the gift as “nihilistic.” He proposes instead that Christian agape should be understood as a “purified gift-exchange” that takes place in a covenant relationship.
44 Hart, , Trespass of the Sign, 103.Google Scholar
45 Marion, , God without Being, 48.Google Scholar
46 Avila, Teresa of, The Interior Castle, trans. Kavanaugh, Kieran and Rodriguez, Otilio (New York: Paulist, 1979), 174.Google Scholar
47 David Thomson comments, “It would be a mistake here to imagine ‘nothing’ as a quasi-presence with some measure of syntactical status, as if that originary nothing/ineffable moment is transcribed by the mystics into writing” (“Deconstruction and Meaning in Medieval Mysticism,” Christianity and Literature 40/2 [Winter 1991]: 112Google Scholar).
48 Johnston, William, ed., The Cloud of Unknowing (New York: Image Books, 1973), 54.Google Scholar
49 Thomson, , “Deconstruction of Meaning,” 119.Google Scholar
50 Johnston, , ed., The Cloud of Unknowing, 102.Google Scholar
51 Ibid., 56. Emphasis added.
52 Ibid.
53 Ibid., 136.
54 Caputo, , Prayers and Tears, 311.Google Scholar
55 Levinas, Emmanuel, The Levinas Reader, ed. Hand, Sean (Oxford: Blackwell, 1989), 177.Google Scholar
56 Ibid., 178.
57 Genoa, Saint Catherine of, “The Spiritual Dialogue” in Catherine of Genoa: Purgation and Purgatory, The Spiritual Dialogue, trans. Hughes, Serge, The Classics of Western Spirituality (New York: Paulist, 1979), 128.Google Scholar
58 Ibid., 131.
58 Ibid., 131.