Heidegger and OntoTheology

The title of my M.A. is one of the more pretentious I've came up with: Samuel Beckett and the Onto-Theo-Logic Constitution of Metaphysics. I love it. I pretend I don't . But I do.

So in my thesis I trace a kind of god-figure in three works by Beckett: Watt, Godot, Endgame. In Watt there is a supernatural figure that pops up, barely making his presence felt, but the presence is actualized. In Godot the presence appears as absence. Godot is the presence of an absence. And in Endgame - well, there's just absence.

I was interested in this move because I thought Beckett was interested in a similar question as Heidegger. Heidegger argues that metaphysics is by definition Onto-theo-logical. Well what does that mean? It means that thinkers have located Being in a being and that being has been elevated to the status of Being.

Okay what does that mean? Well it means for Marx Being is Capital. For Freud Being is the Psyche. It means for Plato Being is The Forms. What they all have in common is that they have located Being as A Being. The difference between Being and being (I'm totally making this more confusing by my use of capital letters. Sorry.) is what Heidegger calls ontological difference. This, to Heidegger, is ultimately what Western Metaphysics gets stumped on: it can only explain Being in terms of A BEING. (A GOD, A FORM, A PSYCHE, An ECONOMICS)

So what Beckett does that's so interesting to me, or at least it was when I was thinking about it a few years ago is that he goes from Being being a presence to a presence defined by an absence to total absence - in Endgame Beckett sees Negation, the nullity, as total absence - which is where he splits from Heidegger.

Heidegger, in his later writings, writes Being under erasure - he crosses out the word Being with a slash. I personally think that Derrida gets credit for a lot of ideas that start with Heidegger, but that's a different post altogether.

Okay - so Being is not A Being. This means that it's not "thingly" and cannot be understood as such. Being is a constant flux - a coming together of the four-fold and the hiddenness of the divine element to the four-fold all at once.

The four-fold is what Heidegger means by the term "appropriation," I think. So what does that mean? Well the four-fold is the earth, sky, gods, and mortals. Heidegger explains this through an example of a jug. A jug comes to be a jug because of the clay which is made clay by the sky and rain and what not. Then the mortal must shape the clay into a jug. Okay, so at this point most people are on board. But it gets complicated with the last part: the gods. For Heidegger the gods come into play when we sit at a table, pour wine out of the jug and toast. This to Heidegger is what makes a thing a thing and what helps us dwell authentically.

While this might sound overly poetic, I think Heidegger's point is seen well if we think about this example: could one possible pray over a microwaveable meal? No. Of course not. But can one pray over Thanksgiving dinner, cooked by Grandma, from food that was harvested. Of course. Does this have anything to do with believing in GOD? I don't think so. Not in the way most people use the word God. What I see Heidegger saying is that the God's have fled because the sacredness has been removed from the world.

Now why has that happened? Well that's happened because technology has enframed (com-placed) everything in the world as a standing-reserve, something ready-at-hand, ready to be used and used up. The forest because lumber - the soil becomes an oil-container - and the news becomes an opinion-container. Humans become resources (human-resource departments.)

For Heidegger our metaphysical maladies have had consequences that have led us to dwell in a way that makes us feel homeless, bored, and living with moments of fleeting authenticity. Now, this does not have to be the case, but the way out isn't easy or fulfilling. More to come.