Search

As it is well known, throughout Being and Time Heidegger distinguishes between an ontic (Entdecken) and an ontological (Erschlossenheit) sense of truth. Whereas the first one involves truth, insofar as a way in which the Dasein can be concerning beings, the second one corresponds to the manner in which the Dasein opens and comprehends their being. In this paper, we will focus on developing the phenomenological aspect of the second sense of truth and its relation with the first one. We will recreate, first and foremost, Heidegger's characterization of the ontological sense. Then, we will make use of the asymmetry between both kinds of senses to inquire about the problem of normativity presupposed in his work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How are we to understand the contradiction of a philosophy that claims to be a legitimate heir of the phenomenological tradition but, at the same time, intends to break free from its limits to allow an unconditioned manifestation? Should we comprehend Jean-Luc Marion's work as a true renovation of phenomenology -as he and his followers do-, or should we instead consider it as a pure theology independent from the phenomenological movement? Why would the theological way be the only possible way out of the crisis of contemporary metaphysics denounced by Marion and, even more, a necessary way? To answer these and other questions, this paper develops some of the paradoxes that arise from the Marionian theological turn, distinguishing two possible ways of understanding its Kehre: either as a deviation that allows extending phenomenology to new fields, or as a return to and abandonment of the phenomenological project. Finally, we wonder if Marion's proposal of a gradual ontology does not encourage a third possible way, which would lead us to think of his thought not as phenomenology anymore, but as a gradualist-theological fansiology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]