Philosophy as Metaphysics
The early writings of Martin Heidegger showed certain fondness for the early Greek thinkers. In fact, in his book Parmenides, he praised Parmenides as a thinker who has hinted the aletheia of Being. With the early Greek thinkers, Being is a physis, a coming-to-be, or an unfolding. Being lies in the truth’s unfolding of itself. Hence, Being is perceived more as a dynamic act of disclosure rather than a static presence.
One recent experience has shown me what this aletheia is all about. My wife and I visited Singapore because of a friend’s invitation to take a three-day vacation. My three days in the country was an experience of aletheia. Each day, I come to encounter a new thing about Singapore, and such new experience is the country’s new disclosure to my consciousness. My ideas about this city has slowly been incarnated because of these new experiences. My experience of the effeciency of their transport system – from their trains, their buses, and cabs; of their HDB units or housing; their right hand drive vehicles; their chicken rice and chili crab menus; their clean streets; and even the harmonious blending of their races – Chinese, Malay, Indians and Bangladeshi. All these contributed to what I now know about Singapore. Aletheia are these new encounters that reveal the truth more and more. It certainly is not an exhaustive grasp of the truth of the city, but it allows me to know the city more, that is, in a way richer than my previous knowledge of it.
This was the aletheia of Being which the early thinkers have labored to articulate. It refers to the gradual unfolding of things. But, in the history of the philosophy of the West, such Being has been slowly replaced by an ontic being especially with the philosophy of Plato. Plato introduces the first metaphysics and the rest of the history of the West followed him.
[1] Since Plato, philosophy becomes metaphysics. Being is no longer the process of coming to be, rather it was reduced to a complete static presence. Being becomes that which is common to all beings, hence Plato calls it as the Beingness of beings or what is later known as the essence.
The entire philosophical tradition becomes an attempt to name Being as the essence, even if essence has been substituted by many other names like Idea, Substance, God, or the Spirit. Every era in the history of the West has become an attempt to give a complete narrative about the Being of beings.
Metaphysics as Onto-Theological
Furthermore, Heidegger contends that metaphysics is necessarily onto-theological. Philosophy as onto-theology searches for the ground of being which is perceived as the source or the creator. Hence, philosophy has become a science of both God - as the creator of beings, and of the Being of beings or that principle which is common to all things.
[2] The God of onto-theology is just another objective reality that grounds the existence of all other things. It is completely “present” just like any other being even if it is the first or the best in the gradation of things. Furthermore, the Being of beings is the essence of things. As Plato would say, the meaning of a table is the Idea of table or tableness, outside the tableness of the table, that table cannot be.
With this, Being was reduced to being, which leads philosophy to abandon its original vocation to think. Philosophy ceases to become attentive to the unfolding of Being. Rather, it becomes a mere empirical science. It seeks to grasp the essence of things in order simply to manipulate and control them. This onto-theological character of philosophy as metaphysics is in fact the necessary predecessor of the control freak mathematico-scientific thinking
[3], which in turn results to the many disasters of our modern time because of its incapacity to transcend the mere physicality of things. With this, there is a need for what he calls as “the task of destroying the history of ontology.”
[4]
Overcoming Metaphysics and the Call for a New Way of Thinking
Heidegger further argues that metaphysics favors calculative thinking over the reflective thinking of an authentic philosophy. He then calls for the destruction of metaphysics, which is not an absolute abandonment but a step-back. This is a retreat from calculative temperament in order to recapture the reflective thought. Philosophy needs to step-back to its original vocation to reflect on the disclosure of Being rather than on being. Whereas being is objectified in metaphysics, in the step-back, Being becomes a no-thing. Since it is not a thing whose existence is complete and objectified, Being always left something unsaid and hidden. Being would always have a reserve.
[5]
The task of this new way of thinking then is to uncover the hiddenness of Being. There is always something that can be said and discovered because in every utterance there would always also be the concealment of Being. Philosophy then necessarily becomes reflective. It becomes a patient paying attention to Being’s simultaneous unfolding and concealment. It awaits and is awed by Being’s every disclosure because such would always be fresh and new. At the same time, philosophy is also aware that every temporal revelation is incomplete. There always remains something hidden, and such would always be an invitation for further reflection.
The Whither of Religous Thinking
If philosophy needs to overcome metaphysics in order to escape its onto-theological tendencies, how about theology? What then would happen to theology after Heidegger’s criticism against onto-theology?
Max Myer clarified that after Heidegger’s destruction of metaphysics
[6] and the poststructuralist thinkers who followed him, theology or religious thinking could no longer remain as what it was throughout centuries. The foundationalist theology of Scholasticism that is anchored on presence could no longer continue to ignore the hiddenness of Being. Religious thinking has also to confront the fact that it has to give account for the absence of Being.
In this sense, even theology is not just about faithful handing down of revealed truths. It is also a relevant utterance of the Gospel. Theology is not just about repetitious professions of the doctrine of the Fathers. Rather, it is also about articulating the Gospel in a way that is meaningful to our context. The Fathers and all the rest of the generations following them have certainly articulated the Gospel in a way that is mindful of their respective culture and time. It would then be the role of our contemporary theologizing to articulate the Gospel in such a way that is both attentive to the temperament of the people especially the young and, at the same time, in a manner that is faithul to the Judaeo-Christian Tradition as has been initiated by the members of the first Christian communities. The question, however, is: how are we to do this?
The Search for the Theological Constants
Contemporary theologians have realized that to do contextual theology is now an imperative.
[7] A well-acclaimed Filipino theologian, José de Mesa, once claimed: “Theology endeavors to express the Gospel faithfully and yet only does it contextually.”
[8] The real test of contextual theologizing rests on its method. This even allows Stephen Bevans to distinguish six models of contextual theology, the classifications of which are mostly based on a particular reflection’s method which gives emphasis on either of the two poles: a theology’s faithfulness to the Gospel or its rootedness to the culture of the people. Contemporary theologizing needs to strike a meaningful balance of these two emphases, that is, aiming to be significant to a particular culture while at the same maintaining its fidelity to the truth of the Gospel. Whereas it’s true that the culture plays a significant role in articulating the faith so much so that Paul VI argues that “evangelization loses much of its force and effectiveness if it does not take into consideration the actual people to whom it is addressed, if it does not use their language, their signs and symbols, if it does not answer the question they ask, and if it does not have an impact on their concrete life.” (E.N. 63)
[9] It is equally important to note also that “Theology does not only have to square with the demands of meaning, but also of truth. Legitimate attention to relevance, after all, does not dispense with fidelity to the Tradition.”
[10] This is where the notion of the theological constants may become an important contribution.
José de Mesa is among the first contemporary theologians who insisted on utilizing the theological constants.
[11] In his mentioned article on the “Contextual Theological Reflection on Justice,” de Mesa emphasized the importance of exploring the various traditions of Catholic theological reflections and of discerning the areas whereby they converge. He calls these similarities as the theological contants.
These theological constants facilitate the work of contextualized theological reflections. They assure us of two things: a particular reflection’s fidelity to the Judeao-Christian Tradition, and its meaningfulness to the context of the people.
It is important to take note that these constants are not a priori principles. Rather, they are discovered. The constants are the various disclosures of Being in the various eras and contexts of theological reflections.
It is true that our conscioiusness is also shaped by our time and context, and the way we understand the movements of God may also be influenced by the kind of consciousness formed by our own context and time. Hence, we would be justified in distinguishing theologies like that of the Fathers, of the Scholastics, of African theologians, or that of a Latin American theology or a Filipino theology. If a theological articulation would have to be meaningful to the people, it should never ignore the context in which the theological articulation is done or addressed.
But while it is true that the context of theologians are varied, which is also the condition of the variety of theological articulations, we should not also ignore the fact that these articulations are all reflections of the ONE Gospel of Christ. Hence, they could not be totally different. They have to converge on certain things simply because they talk of an only single TRUTH, Christ Himself.
This is where the constants play an important role. Discovering the converging themes in the established theological traditions is an assurance that we are paying attention to the unfolding of God’s Being as it takes a meaningful form. The a posteriori approach is a testimony that we are not making arbitrary namings of God’s disclosure. The constants are the authentic experiences of the people. In a sense, the constants are God’s own way of dealing with the multipliciy of the people’s cultures and traditions. Hence, discovering them in a theological articulation is an assurance that such singular and particular tradition is also faithful to God’s revelation in the Gospel.
Using the Constants as Guides for Fresh Theological Articulations
Assuring a theology’s faithfulness to the Gospel is not the only function of the theological constants. They also serve as guides for fresh articulations.
[12] For a theology to be relevant to the culture of the people, it has to assume the language of that culture. Hence, it has to take new formulations. In doing this, the constants can be used as guides. They would ensure that the new formulations are not totally severed from the Judaeo-Christian Tradition. With the constants, the new articulations are assured that they are still linked to the Gospel.
Hence, the constants open the possiblity for a fresh articulation of the Gospel. It allows the realization that there are new facets of the truth that is uniquely revealed to a particular culture. Although, theology could not ignore the elements of the culture because God’s Being is certrainly revealed in all culture, it is also aware at the same time that “in speaking about the faith, such elements are not totally adequate. There may be a need to qualify or at times even negate them in the light of the faith it speaks about.”
[13] The constants then become helpful guides in evaluating which elements of the culture are faithful to the Gospel, and which elements would have to be taken out.
Understanding the Constants as Affirmation of the Hiddenness of Being
Among the important contributions of the use of the constants in theological articulations are the facts that they are discovered a posteriori and they are open to the fresh articulations of the Gospel. The use of the constants overcomes what Heidegger calls as onto-theology.
Heidegger even contends that when metaphysics takes the work of theology by assuming upon itself the question about God, as the first being or the uncaused cause, it does a “contradiction.” It is a “round-square” for it is certainly impossible to speak of God in the language of metaphysics.
[14]
Such objection to theology, as equated to Christian Philosophy, is oftentimes used as testimonies for Heidegger’s alleged atheism. However, if we are to thoroughly examine Heidegger’s claim about religion and theological thinking, we might also be justified to say that Heidegger’s objection is not a total rejection of God. He was plainly criticizing the method or the language used in speaking about God.
[15] He despises the onto-theological articulations of God, but his call for the god-less thinking, as an alternative to the onto-theological metaphysics of the West, may not be taken as a plain rejection of the Being of God. Heidegger himself clarifies his claim by saying, “the god-less thinking which must abandon the god of philosophy, god as causa sui, is thus perhaps closer to the divine God. Here this means only: the god-less thinking is more open to Him than the onto-theologic would like to admit.”
[16]
Hence, it becomes our business now to discern as to what could this alternative (god-less, that is, free from the idols that we create of God) thinking which is perhaps closer to God Himself, which Heidegger is talking about. How are we to attain this kind of step-back from onto-theological thinking, that would afford us of an authentic theological reflection?
I propose here that a contextual theological reflection that uses the “theological constants” can be taken as a kind of a step back from the onto-theological character of the metaphysics of the West, which relies so much on the redundant articulations of the faith even if they are already devoid of meaning for the people.
[17] The use of the theological constants allows the unfolding of what Myers would call as the reserve of Being. Using the theological constants as a guide for fresh articulations is a feasible means for a faithful reconstruction of the truth of the Gospel in a way that would be relevant to a particular culture. This reconstruction is a new articulation that is devoid of the instrumentality of the onto-theological thought, and is rather characterized by a patient waiting of the manifestations of Being. The use of the theological constants provides venues for authentic dialogue between the culture and the Gospel. This requires that the theologian takes the attitude of a patient listener who allows Being to speak, rather than that of manipulator who strategize things so that he could achieve his pre-conceived goal. The reconstructed articulation of a theology that utilizes the theological constants is one that allows an “opening to that which is held in reserve, the unsaid along with the said.”
[18] Furthermore, “such an opening to the unsaid is incompatible with certainty and self-justification, since it is such an opening to that which cannot be projected as a possibility beforehand by the self.”
[19]
This answers Heidegger’s critique against a pseudo-reflective religious thinking. Heidegger reminds us of the possible trap of an inauthentic theological thought which he refers to with the following words:
Anyone for whom the Bible is a Divine revelation and truth has the anwer to the question, “why are there essents rather than nothing?” even before it is asked: everything that is, except God himself, has been created by Him. God himself, the increate creator, “is.” One who holds to such faith can in a way participate in the asking of our question without ceasing to be a believer and taking all the consequences of the step. He will only be to act as if... On the one hand a faith that does not perpetually expose itself to the possibility of unfaith is no faith but mere convenience: the believer simply makes up his mind to adhere to the traditional doctrine. This is neither faith nor questioning, but the indifference of those who can busy themselves with everything, sometimes even displaying a keen interest in faith as well as questioning.
[20]
This also allows Myers to claim that the future of religious thinking must gear towards the destruction of idols or “symbols which claims to be the center of a structure of meaning...”
[21] He also argues further that religious thinking must also be wary of a reconstruction “which is only a repetition of the earlier event for it knows that time is the way that being reveals itself and that no one can step to that stream twice.”
[22] For Myers, the post-Heideggerian religious thinking is destructive of both conventionalism and traditionalism “which longs for the eternal return of the same.”
[23]
This certainly are the aims of the use of the theological constants. The approach is an explicit search for the various disclosures of Being. De Mesa claims that the use of the theological constants
...enable cross-historical and cross-cultural comparisons thereby serving as reminders as to which aspects of the faith (as represented by particular constants) need to be attended to in a new formulation by a local community. It may be well that a set of constants discovered in one local church may alert other local churches to certain aspects of the faith which they have not quite paid attention to but recognize as essential.
[24]
The theological constants overcome the rigidity of fundamentalism and traditionalism upon which Heidegger frowns upon. These constants reorient theological thinking into the aletheic character of Being which reveals and conceals at the same time. As De Mesa again says,
After all, every contextualization of the Gospel tends to bring certain aspects of it to the foreground, while others are relegated to the background. This implies that the use of constants in gauging the truthfulness of a given theological reflection requires dialogue with other communities of faith, whether of the past or the present. Openness and willingness to learn is an imperative within this framework and procedure because constants are precisely discovered in a communally-oriented theologizing.
[25]
The use of the constants provide us the means to confront the two-fold challenge of doing contextual theological reflection and of facilitating the step back to where Heidegger has invited us. The theological constants assure us that the a particular reflection remains faithful to the one Gospel of Christ as it is, at the same time, meaningful to the culture of the people. Furthermore, they also assure us that our theological articulations would always be open to the simulataneous disclosure and concealment of Being, the aletheic character of Being, which would ensure that every theological articulation is a further reflection about the truth of the Being of God.
Joel C. Sagut
[1] Martin Heidegger himself says in the End of Philosophy, trans. Joan Stambaugh (New York: Harper and Row, 1973), 4: “In the beginning of its history, Being opens itself out as emerging (physis) and unconcealment (aletheia). From there, it reaches the formulation of presence and permanence in the sense of enduring. Metaphysics proper begins with this.” Furthermore, Charles Guignon, in his “Introduction” for the Cambridge Companion to Heidegger, ed. Charles Guignon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 18, adds: “As a result to the first dawn of history, being comes to be thought of as what endures, what is permanent, what is always there. It is the continuous presence of the substance (ousia) that which remains through all changes... Because Plato inaugurated this interpretation of beingness, the entire history of metaphysics can be called ‘Platonism’.”
[2] Martin Heidegger, Identity and Difference, trans. Joan Stambaugh (New York: Harper and Row, 1969), 54: “western metaphysics, however, since its very beginning with the Greeks has eminently been both ontology and theology.”
[3] Max A. Myers. “Towards what is religious thinking underway?,” in Deconstruction and Theology. (New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1982), 119.
[4] Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, trans. John Macquarrie and Edwad Robinson. (Tubingen: Neomarius Verlag, 1963), 41.
[5]Myers, 138.
[6] Myers, 124.
[7] “There is no such thing as theology; there is only contextual theology... The contextualization of theology – the attempt to understand Christian faith in terms of a particular context – is really a theological imperative,” in Stephen Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology. (Manila: Logos Publications, Inc., 2003), 3.
[8] José de Mesa, “Contextual Theological Reflection on Justice,” Philippiniana Sacra, vol. XLIII, no. 127 (January-April, 2008), 5.
[9] Paul VI, Evangelii Nuntiandi. (Pasay City: Daughters of St. Paul, 1976), art. 26; Cf. de Mesa, 8.
[10] De Mesa, 9.
[11] De Mesa, 10-11. He however attributes the originality of the use of the concept of the “contants” to the following authors: James D.G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity (2nd ed., London: SCM Press, 1990, 11-32; Paul VI, Evangelii Nuntiandi (Pasay City: Daughters of St. Paul, 1976), art. 26; Edward Schillebeeckx , Interim Report on the Books “Jesus” & “Christ” (New York: Crossroad, 1981) 51-55; and Stephen Bevans and Roger P. Schroeder, Constants in Context: A Theology of Missions for Today (Maryknoll, New Yok: Orbis Books, 2004).
[12] De Mesa, 12.
[13] De Mesa, 11.
[14]Cf. Martin Heidegger, Introduction to Metaphysics, trans. Ralph Manheim (London: Yale University Press, 1959), 7, where he says: “Christian philosophy is a round square and a misunderstanding.”
[15]Heidegger’s objection against the god of onto-theology is rooted on his rejection of the philosophical notion of God as the highest Being and the uncaused cause, the causa sui. Hence, Heidegger says, “Man can neither pray nor sacrifice to this god. Beofre the causa sui, man can neither fall to his knees in awe nor can he play music and dance before this god.” Martin Heidegger (ID), 1969, 72.
[16] Heidegger (ID), 1969, 72.
[17] For examples of studies that utilizes the notion of theological contants in actual contextual theologizing, please see the following articles produced by the members of the theology research team of the John Paul II Research Center of UST: Arvin Eballo, “Theological Cosntants of Justice in the Old Testament,” Philippiniana Sacra, vol. XLIII, no. 127 (January – April 2008), 15-22; Jose de Mesa, “Theological Constants of Justice in the New Testament,” Philippiniana Sacra, vol. XLIII, no. 127 (January – April 2008), 23-32; Jannel Abogado, et. al., “Theological Constants in Tommaso d’Aquino’s Theology of Justice,” Philippiniana Sacra, vol. XLIII, no. 127 (January-April 2008), 33-66; and Dionisia Roman and Pablito Baybado, “Theological Constants of Justice in Catholic Social Teaching,” Philippiniana Sacra, vol. XLIII, no. 127 (January-April 2008), 83-98.
[18] Myers, 141.
[19] Myers, 141.
[20] Heidegger, 1959, 7.
[21] Myers, 142.
[22] Myers, 142.
[23] Myers, 142.
[24] De Mesa, 12-13.
[25] De Mesa, 13.