탈-형이상학과Jean-Luc Marion의 Iconic 신학 (The Postmetaphysical and Jean-Luc Marion’s Iconic Theology)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국조직신학회
· 수록지 정보 : 한국조직신학논총 / 16호 / 131 ~ 156페이지
· 저자명 : 안택윤

초록

하나님의 본성과 속성에 대한 견해를 표명할 때에 우리는 전통적인
신학의 물음들이 역사적으로 형이상학에 지나치게 의존하고 있다는 일
반적인 생각으로부터 기원하고 있음을 발견한다. 이러한 형이상학은 존
재론의 방식으로 나타났다. 그 예로서 아퀴나스에 의하면, 형이상학이
란,“일반적인 존재자들과 최상의 존재를 구별하되 동시적으로 물질세
계로부터 분리된 것으로 구분하는 것이다.” 이러한 형이상학적인 사고
는 암묵적으로 신학의 영역에서 당연한 것으로 전제되어 왔다. 이러한
사고는 진리의 이름으로 새로운 진리의 가능성을 차단해왔는지 모른다.
그러나 최근 들어 서구의 낡은 형이상학과 이에 기반을 둔 모던적인
사고방식이 급격히 쇠퇴해가면서 전통적으로 이러한 체계에 집착해온
신학도 변화를 이루도록 요청되고 있다. 본 논문은 최근 들어 대두되고
있는 탈-형이상학적 신학 논의를 하이데거의 후기 사상으로부터 간략
히 살펴보고 존재론적인 형이상학의 신학을 극복하기 위해서 현상학적
신학을 전개하는 프랑스의 Jean-Luc Marion의 소위 증여(gift)의 원리
에 입각한 iconic 신학사상에 대해 알아보고자 한다.

영어초록

For the discussion of post-ontological theology, we starts with
Heidegger who opens a way for non ontological discourses in
theology. His starting point is the reflection of two principles that are
inherent in metaphysics: the principle of identity and the logic of
reason. In the dualistic formation of ontological discourses, the two
principles are employed in the system of metaphysics. He calls the
system onto theology: on the one hand, it is ontological because it
presupposes a sameness of being even in the concept of difference in
the dualistic format of beings and Being. On the other hand, it is
theological because God is employed in the dualistic formation to
justify the system. Heidegger prepared a way to the language of gift,
or givenness, by “stepping back” from onto theology, thereby
overcoming onto theology through the movement of withdrawal; a
movement that he calls Ereignis (“event of appropriation”). Later,
Heidegger connected the concept of Ereignis to his interpretation of
“es gibt.”
Marion phenomenologically analyzes Heidegger’s concepts of
“being” and draws a new understanding of “givenness.” Interpreting
“es gibt” as “It gives,” Marion introduces the anonymous “It” as a
crucial element in the expression of divine givenness through withdrawal.
The otherness of God does not appear in the economy of gift.
Marion tries to promote the communication between humans and God
by suggesting the priority of divine initiation: The possibility of
communication comes not from the human side, but from the divine
side because while human desire is limited, divine desire is already
saturated in givenness.
Marion provides us with an iconic theology that is based on a new
understanding of the divine. Marion identifies the cause of the
problem of onto theology as “idolatry,” stating that this idolatry has
its origin the subjectivity of the human gaze. The human gaze creates
the idol and worships it, identifying it as “God.” The idol of “God”
appears in modern theism as well as in atheism.
The only way of escaping idolatry is by way of the “other,” God.
Breaking through the barrier of the human experience of the idol, the
divine gives way to a new dimension that Marion calls “iconicity.”
The icon gives humanity a way to access the divine in the excess of
the givenness. The givenness can be understood and accomplished
only by the giver. In iconicity, the relationship between humans and
the divine is characterized by distance, which indicates the incommensurability
between humans and the divine.
From the excess of the divine in saturated phenomenon, the name
of God delivers itself in the movement of giving. Thus, the divine
name can be called “Love.” God gives because God loves. In distance,
Love is free because it gives. Love loves without condition. It
is culminated in the Event of the Christ. They provide us with iconic,
non ontological theological discourse by overcoming modern discourses
of theism and atheism that are based on subjectivity. It also
opens up the dimension of “unknowing” in negative theology.

참고자료

· 없음