부정 신학적 ‘신적 초월’의 포스트모던적 이해에 대한 비교 연구 - 데리다, 카푸토의 해체론과 마리옹의 탈형이상학론을 중심으로 (A Comparative Study of Postmodern Understandings on the concept of the “Divine Transcendence” in the Negative Theology of Pseudo-Dionysius: Focused on Postmetaphysical Theology of Jean-Luc Marion and )

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 연세대학교 한국기독교문화연구소
· 수록지 정보 : 신학논단 / 81권 / 139 ~ 172페이지
· 저자명 : 안택윤

초록

This paper aims to promote a new understanding of the concept of the divine transcendence in postmodern atmosphere. For this it takes a method of comparative study between two postmodern theologies which are inspired by the negative theology of Pseudo-Dionysius: Postmetaphysical Theology of Jean-Luc Marion and Deconstructive Theology of Jacques Derrida and John D. Caputo. According to Pseudo-Dionysius, no one can measure who God is. God transcends every name, concept, even thought. Thus one needs to be silent denying any possibilities of human ways to attain to God except praising and praying. God goes beyond being and the Good and is called hyper-being, hyper-Good. Postmetaphysical and Deconstructive theology share common grounds in that it is meaningless to discuss the supernatural divine transcendence without considering divine immanence: the overcoming of ontological metaphysics and logocentrism of modernity to promote a unity of theology and spirituality with a common postmodern spirit of difference, otherness.
Both are inspired by Pseudo-Dionysius. However, while Marion takes a more affirmative to negative theology, Derrida and Caputo develop a critical way. Marion tries to recover the Christian religiosity which overcomes the modern secularity by introducing a task of ‘the return of God.’ He shows a tendency of transcendental immanence.
Derrida and Caputo propose pseudo-transcendence of the event of the impossible advocating a ‘weakness of God,’ who will come in the future of the impossible Messianic structure, and they tend to be immanent transcendence.
While both sides contribute in proposing new ways of understanding of the divine transcendence, they have limitations in their understanding of divine transcendence as well as in God-talk. With a common task of overcoming metaphysics, Marion mainly relies on the transcendence of the superabundant givenness of the saturated phenomenon of the divine revelation. In this amazing divine movement, the roll of the human action in more ethical way disappears.
Derrida and Caputo's immanent transcendence is deconstructed into the temporality in the event of pseudo-transcendence which tends to make a distinction of transcendence and immanence meaningless.
The transcendence of divine mystical superabundant givenness in Marion and the immanence of human ethical passion of the event in Derrida and Caputo are important way of thinking. However following the postmodern spirit of difference and otherness, the tension between the divine transcendence and immanence is not something to be removed or dissolved into either side on the two. Rather, with this tension, the meaning of the transcendence as well as immanence lives.

영어초록

This paper aims to promote a new understanding of the concept of the divine transcendence in postmodern atmosphere. For this it takes a method of comparative study between two postmodern theologies which are inspired by the negative theology of Pseudo-Dionysius: Postmetaphysical Theology of Jean-Luc Marion and Deconstructive Theology of Jacques Derrida and John D. Caputo. According to Pseudo-Dionysius, no one can measure who God is. God transcends every name, concept, even thought. Thus one needs to be silent denying any possibilities of human ways to attain to God except praising and praying. God goes beyond being and the Good and is called hyper-being, hyper-Good. Postmetaphysical and Deconstructive theology share common grounds in that it is meaningless to discuss the supernatural divine transcendence without considering divine immanence: the overcoming of ontological metaphysics and logocentrism of modernity to promote a unity of theology and spirituality with a common postmodern spirit of difference, otherness.
Both are inspired by Pseudo-Dionysius. However, while Marion takes a more affirmative to negative theology, Derrida and Caputo develop a critical way. Marion tries to recover the Christian religiosity which overcomes the modern secularity by introducing a task of ‘the return of God.’ He shows a tendency of transcendental immanence.
Derrida and Caputo propose pseudo-transcendence of the event of the impossible advocating a ‘weakness of God,’ who will come in the future of the impossible Messianic structure, and they tend to be immanent transcendence.
While both sides contribute in proposing new ways of understanding of the divine transcendence, they have limitations in their understanding of divine transcendence as well as in God-talk. With a common task of overcoming metaphysics, Marion mainly relies on the transcendence of the superabundant givenness of the saturated phenomenon of the divine revelation. In this amazing divine movement, the roll of the human action in more ethical way disappears.
Derrida and Caputo's immanent transcendence is deconstructed into the temporality in the event of pseudo-transcendence which tends to make a distinction of transcendence and immanence meaningless.
The transcendence of divine mystical superabundant givenness in Marion and the immanence of human ethical passion of the event in Derrida and Caputo are important way of thinking. However following the postmodern spirit of difference and otherness, the tension between the divine transcendence and immanence is not something to be removed or dissolved into either side on the two. Rather, with this tension, the meaning of the transcendence as well as immanence lives.

참고자료

· 없음