Texte remanié de: Diss.--Theologische Fakultät--Freiburg i. Brsg.--Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, 2006.

Submitted by Renata Lopes (renatasil82@gmail.com) on 2016-01-25T14:21:30Z No. of bitstreams: 1 carolinadetonimarquesvieiracoutinho.pdf: 765959 bytes, checksum: a5296aa67ab4062e23e975cc17ceee10 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Adriana Oliveira (adriana.oliveira@ufjf.edu.br) on 2016-01-25T19:34:15Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 carolinadetonimarquesvieiracoutinho.pdf: 765959 bytes, checksum: a5296aa67ab4062e23e975cc17ceee10 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-01-25T19:34:15Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 carolinadetonimarquesvieiracoutinho.pdf: 765959 bytes, checksum: a5296aa67ab4062e23e975cc17ceee10 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014-02-27 / CAPES - Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / Este trabalho tem por objetivo abordar o pensamento do filósofo francês Jean-Luc Marion acerca do amor. A busca pela univocidade do conceito filosófico de amor e a relação do mesmo com o tema do dom articulam-se em sua fenomenologia bastante particular. O amor, não mais dividido entre, por exemplo, eros e ágape, é tema da redução erótica de Marion, desenvolvida, principalmente, em sua obra Le phénomène érotique. A pretendida univocidade radical do amor, nos interpostos limites da fenomenologia e da teologia, em Marion, relaciona-se diretamente com a ipseidade, a alteridade e o conhecimento que, de Platão a Santo Agostinho, inserem-se na lógica própria do amor. / La proposition de ce travail c’est approcher la pensée du philosophe français Jean-Luc Marion par rapport à l’amour. La quête vers l’univocité du concept philosophique de l’amour et la relation de celui-ci avec le sujet du don s’articulent dans sa phénoménologie très particulière. L’amour, non plus divisé entre, par example, eros et agapè, c’est le sujet de la reduction érotique chez Marion, developpée surtout dans son oeuvre Le phénomène érotique. L’intentionée univocité radicale de l’amour, dans les limites interposées de la phénoménologie et la théologie, chez Marion, s’articulent directement avec l’ipseité, l’alterité e la connaissance qui, de Platon à Saint Augustin, s’intègrent à la logique même de l’amour.

Thesis advisor: Jeffrey Bloechl / Is it possible for a finite thing to mediate an infinite God? Would it not be as futile as a hand trying to grasp the entire earth, or a seashell to contain the ocean? A finite thing is by definition limited, and thus its attempt to reveal an infinite God seems to lead immediately to two possible outcomes: (a) idolatry, where the finite fails to adequately capture God, where mediator becomes imposter, and (b) iconoclasm, which recognizes the inevitable failure of mediation and seeks to avoid or destroy any further attempts to carry it out. While taking different courses of action, their opposition reveals a deeper unity: both posit an implicit competition between the infinite God and finite reality. And yet most religions still claim mediation of God is possible. How do they avoid this impasse? To explore this possibility of mediation, I turn to the things themselves, focusing on the particular case of the icon. As something to be looked at, touched, or kissed, the icon reminds us how deeply rooted we are in the senses we prefer to take for granted, and cuts short any attempts to “spirit away” the finite limitations of human existence. The Introduction contextualizes this first problem, but upon turning to the icon in Chapter 1 a second problem immediately arises. What is an icon, and how do we approach it? Aesthetics, history, patristics, and contemporary theology have a legitimate claim on its identity, but also suffer from significant blind spots. By untangling the lines of these debates, I show that two questions critical to my inquiry remain without a satisfactory answer: 1) What is an image, and how does it mediate the truth in what it shows? 2) What would it mean for God to “show” himself? I argue that phenomenology will serve as a productive way forward on both these fronts. Chapter 2 uses the work of Hans-Georg Gadamer to address the first of these questions with a hermeneutic phenomenology of the image. Chapter 3 addresses the second in dialogue with Jean-Luc Marion. Although Marion does engage with the question of the painted icon in several places, the “icon” for Marion is not primarily a question of images, but of the unique way that God shows himself. When combined with Gadamer’s aesthetics this will offer the launching point for my phenomenological analysis of the icon in Chapters 4 and 5. The icon is something to be seen, but also something to be touched and kissed. It is a kind of representational art, with a unique style and clearly defined content, but also embedded in a practice of substitutional prayer and shared with a liturgical community. I show how each of these dimensions of meaningful mediation arises within ordinary human experience and how its structure changes as it is extended in prayer. Chapter 6 closes the inquiry by drawing these particular results into a final and general model of “iconic mediation.” This begins to explain how a finite thing in its limitations and particularities can mediate an infinite God, but only once we have exposed and subverted the layers of iconoclasm implicit in the original question. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2019. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Philosophy.

Thesis advisor: Jeffrey Bloechl / Is it possible for a finite thing to mediate an infinite God? Would it not be as futile as a hand trying to grasp the entire earth, or a seashell to contain the ocean? A finite thing is by definition limited, and thus its attempt to reveal an infinite God seems to lead immediately to two possible outcomes: (a) idolatry, where the finite fails to adequately capture God, where mediator becomes imposter, and (b) iconoclasm, which recognizes the inevitable failure of mediation and seeks to avoid or destroy any further attempts to carry it out. While taking different courses of action, their opposition reveals a deeper unity: both posit an implicit competition between the infinite God and finite reality. And yet most religions still claim mediation of God is possible. How do they avoid this impasse? To explore this possibility of mediation, I turn to the things themselves, focusing on the particular case of the icon. As something to be looked at, touched, or kissed, the icon reminds us how deeply rooted we are in the senses we prefer to take for granted, and cuts short any attempts to “spirit away” the finite limitations of human existence. The Introduction contextualizes this first problem, but upon turning to the icon in Chapter 1 a second problem immediately arises. What is an icon, and how do we approach it? Aesthetics, history, patristics, and contemporary theology have a legitimate claim on its identity, but also suffer from significant blind spots. By untangling the lines of these debates, I show that two questions critical to my inquiry remain without a satisfactory answer: 1) What is an image, and how does it mediate the truth in what it shows? 2) What would it mean for God to “show” himself? I argue that phenomenology will serve as a productive way forward on both these fronts. Chapter 2 uses the work of Hans-Georg Gadamer to address the first of these questions with a hermeneutic phenomenology of the image. Chapter 3 addresses the second in dialogue with Jean-Luc Marion. Although Marion does engage with the question of the painted icon in several places, the “icon” for Marion is not primarily a question of images, but of the unique way that God shows himself. When combined with Gadamer’s aesthetics this will offer the launching point for my phenomenological analysis of the icon in Chapters 4 and 5. The icon is something to be seen, but also something to be touched and kissed. It is a kind of representational art, with a unique style and clearly defined content, but also embedded in a practice of substitutional prayer and shared with a liturgical community. I show how each of these dimensions of meaningful mediation arises within ordinary human experience and how its structure changes as it is extended in prayer. Chapter 6 closes the inquiry by drawing these particular results into a final and general model of “iconic mediation.” This begins to explain how a finite thing in its limitations and particularities can mediate an infinite God, but only once we have exposed and subverted the layers of iconoclasm implicit in the original question. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2019. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Philosophy.

In this essay I explore some of the theological consequences of Jean-Luc Marions antimetaphysical philosophy of religion. Inspired by Heidegger and Nietzsche Marion works from the definition of metaphysics as "onto-theology". This means that the western metaphysical tradition from at least Fransisco Suarez made the fundamental mistake of conflating the being of God with the beingness of created beings. This was done in an attempt to give an all-encompassing general description of the world in one universal science. In this science God as Causa Sui (the self caused cause), functions as the first efficient cause of the world. The result from this thinking was according to Marion that God became limited to the conditions of the study of Being. God became knowable as a being. In this process the worry is that theologians lost a sense of wonder for the divine and God became more of a necessary piece in the rational universe. According to Marion this "God of the philosophers and savants" can no longer be the revealed God that judaism and christianity has confessed to but an idol created in the image of man. Therefore, Marion goes on the search for the “God beyond Being”, the God who is infinitely different and other than his creation. One can describe Marions project as exercises in apophatic or “negative” theology with the tools of phenomenology. All of which aims at describing something at the center of faith that he believes it is impossible to completely describe, and that the attempt to do so will not get you closer to what you are looking for but actually further away. For him metaphysics represents the hubris of conforming everything, and thus also God, to the conditions of man. And this can only make idols in mans own image, never reach the divine. How then does God show himself? This is answered by Marion with his description of “saturated phenomena”. Phenomenologically speaking everything that shows itself gives itself. Man is not the starting point nor the condition of possibility of what can show itself. God can thus give himself completely, without limit, and man experiences God without fully being able to make sense of the encounter. This encounter is the saturated phenomenon par excellence. Theologically speaking Marion pinpoints the encounter with God in what for him is the very center of the christian revelation namely the celebration of the eucharist which he describes as the hermeneutics of the eternal Word by itself. The theological/phenomenological vision of Marion has been wildly debated. In this essay I explore some critical responses to Marion from the english speaking world with a focus on his theological thinking. To do this I chose to present the main critical points made in respons to Marion by John Milbank, Graham Ward, Bruce Ellis Benson and James K.A. Smith. This critique is then discussed under three headings “embodiment”, “the divinity of Christ” and “knowledge of God”. In my judgment some of the critical points raised loose their force as they ignore the definitions Marion explicitly lays out and read too much into his discussions of the role of metaphysics in theological discourse. I also try to show that some of the critique becomes strange when one places Marion in the context of a self professed Roman Catholic whose theology reasonably should be seen as a contribution to (at least) that living tradition. Other times it is hard to asses Marions thought and the critique as you can choose what types of descriptions to emphasise and what to downplay. This is especially an issue with respect to what Marion calls the icon and its functions. Some of the critical points do seem valid to me and pose serious questions to Marions project as a whole, especially the way Marion wants to place knowledge of the divine in a separate category than other knowledge and the consequences this has for our ability to know and speak about God. In most Christian epistemology the inability for humans to know God is simultaneously because God is other than us and also because of sin, but this distinction is seemingly lost in Marions thought. Another difficulty is how to describe Jesus Christ as the incarnation of “God beyond being”. The tendency of Marion is to emphasise the hidden presence of God in Christ in such a strongly kenotic language that his theology runs the risk of falling into docetism.

Thesis advisor: Andrew L. Prevot / Thesis advisor: André Brouillette / The philosopher Jean-Luc Marion presents a phenomenological approach to the Trinity. He criticizes traditional trinitarian theology based on metaphysics in that it fails to resolve the intrinsic contradiction between the unicity of the one God and the plurality of the persons of the Trinity. He proposes, rather, 'trinitarian revelation'; in this, Jesus Christ, the par excellence revelation, unveils the Father, while the Holy Spirit guides the beholder to see the icon of the Son from the proper perspective. This anamorphosis model overcomes the limitations of the metaphysical theology of the Trinity; it stresses that the beholder sees the sole visibility of the Son and appreciates the communion of plurality in charity within the mutual relationships of the persons of the Trinity. One of the outstanding points of Marion's phenomenological approach to trinitarian revelation, moreover, is that the viewer is involved in triune God's unveiling. Believers can experience 'trinitarian revelation' through praying personally and participating in the sacraments of the Church. In this conversation of the perspective, they receive the gifts of sacrifice, forgiveness, and communion as the manifestation of the communion of charity among the persons of the Trinity. Paradoxically, as with the communion within the Trinity, these gifts are not directed inwardly to the individual believer, but they are gifts to be given out to others. This is how God reveals himself in Marion's trinitarian mode and how we participate in that revelation of triune God. / Thesis (STL) — Boston College, 2023. / Submitted to: Boston College. School of Theology and Ministry. / Discipline: Sacred Theology.

La phénoménologie de la donation se présente sous la forme d´un projet d´ouverture radicale du champ de la phénoménalité. Après avoir montré que la modernité a enfermé les phénomènes dans des conditions de possibilité dictées par un Sujet, et que la phénoménologie allemande a poursuivi ce geste en indexant les phénomènes sur l´horizon de l´objectité ou de l´étantité, Marion propose de reconduire le geste de la réduction phénoménologique à la seule donation. Ce faisant, il réintroduit en phénoménologie des phénomènes paradoxaux – phénomènes saturés – qui font violence, par excès, aux capacités réceptrices du Sujet. Marion introduit donc en phénoménologie une nouvelle modalité de l´invisibilité (et donc de la visibilité) que nous appelons « inexistence » (en opposition tout autant avec le non-être qu’avec la non-existence), dont la structure est paradoxalement fondée sur celle de l´écrit, puisqu´il s´agit ni plus ni moins, pour elle, que de présenter de façon positive une absence selon la logique de la signification. Ce faisant, et de par cette structure discursive de la visibilité, toute la phénoménologie de Marion peut être lue comme une véritable apologie de l´inexistence. / The phenomenology of givenness is presented in the form of a project of radical opening of the field of phenomenality. After having shown that modernity has enclosed phenomena under conditions of possibility dictated by a Subject, and that German phenomenology has pursued this gesture by indexing phenomena in the horizon of objectivity or of beingness, Marion proposes to reestablish the gesture of phenomenological reduction to single donation. In so doing, he reintroduces into phenomenology some paradoxical phenomena —saturated phenomena— which violate, by excess, the receptive capacities of the Subject. Marion thus introduces into phenomenology a new modality of invisibility (and thus of visibility) which we call "inexistance" (equally opposed to non-being as to non-existence), whose structure is paradoxically founded on that of writting, since it is neither more nor less, for inexistence, than to present in a positive way an absence according to the logic of meaning. In so doing, and through this discursive structure of visibility, all Marion's phenomenology can be read as a true apology for existence.

« Poète et non honnête homme. On ne consulte que l’oreille, parce qu’on manque de cœur » : il y a peut-être une très grande proximité entre cette pensée de Pascal et l’inspiration de la pensée de Marion. Dans l’article « De la “mort de Dieu” aux noms divins » il fait allusion à une logique de la charité à développer, comme tâche pour la pensée. Ce qu’on a tenté de reconstruire, c’est le développement de cette inspiration, en ayant comme point de départ le concept de négation, tel qu’il émerge dans Certitudes négatives. La négation constitue, dans ce texte, par le concept de certitude négative, un troisième élargissement de la phénoménalité, qui saisit non seulement l’excès de l’intuition par rapport aux concepts, mais l’impossibilité que l’excès impose aux concepts. Marion présente un discours sur la limite, transcendantale, à entendre comme le lieu où se donne un degré redoublé de réalité. Cette avancée, qui montre qu’aussi la négation relève de la donation, doit être mise en perspective avec le constat, qui caractérise la fin de Reduction et donation, que la négation, par l’ennui, est la condition pour accéder à la donation. On a essayé d’approfondir ce nœud par la reconstruction de l’émergence de la négation dans la pensée de Marion et de ses caractères, avec une particulière attention au concept de distance et à sa genèse. Par cette voie on a pu mettre en évidence l’articulation concrète et la centralité dans l’œuvre de Marion du rapport entre phénoménologie et apophatisme, et la façon avec laquelle elle peut se développer en une logique de la charité. / Between phenomenology and apophatism : starting from Jean-Luc Marion « Poet and not honest man. We consult only the ear, because we lack heart ». There is perhaps a great proximity between this thought of Pascal and the inspiration of Marion's thought. In the article « De la “mort de dieu” aux noms divins » he alludes to a logic of charity to develop, as a task for thought. What we have tried to reconstruct is the development of this inspiration, having as a starting point the concept of negation, as it emerges in certain Certitudes négatives. Negation constitutes in this text, by the concept of negative certainty, a third enlargement of phenomenality - after the givenness and saturated phenomena - which captures not only the excess of intuition in relation to concepts, but the impossibility that excess imposes on concepts. Marion presents a discourse on the transcendental limit, to be understood as the place where a redoubled degree of reality is given. This advance, which shows that the negation belongs to the givenness, must be put into perspective with the finding, which characterizes the end of Reduction and givenness, that negation, through boredom, is the condition for accessing the donation. We tried to analyze this crux by reconstructing the emergence of negation in Marion's thought and its characters, with particular attention to the concept of distance and its genesis. In this way it has been possible to highlight the concrete articulation and centrality in Marion's work of the relationship between phenomenology and apophatism, and the way in which it can develop into a logic of charity.

Cette thèse a comme objectif de repenser le rapport entre Descartes et Nietzsche à travers une continuité qui se construit sur le fil conducteur thématique du statut cartésien de l’ego. L’interprétation heideggérienne du lien entre Descartes et Nietzsche est pour cette raison fondamentale : en effet, en relevant à l’intérieur ce rapport les signes du déploiement d’un Même qui a marqué l’époque de la métaphysique de la subjectivité, Heidegger définit un espace fondamental commun entre les deux philosophes. Cet espace, qui se développe à partir de l’émergence de l’ego, semble cependant déborder les limites constitutives de la métaphysique, lorsque Nietzsche retrouve dans le commencement cartésien une ouverture de l’ego au sein du vivant interprété comme volonté de puissance. Sa démarche, loin de seulement le néantiser, vise à tra-duire l’ego dans une dimension morphologique : l’ego serait donc l’effet d’une organisation d’une agrégation de forces, qui prennent forme par le biais d’un centre en devenir. Le chemin de la déconstruction nietzschéenne suit des étapes bien précises : en premier lieu, reconduire le statut de l’ego à une égologie de la substance ; en deuxième lieu, déplacer la certitude fondamentale du cogito vers un sentiment de l’ego (Ichgefühl) qui se fixe comme semblant-à-être ; en troisième lieu dévoiler l’ipséité en tant qu’abime, contre toute possibilité d’interpréter le corps comme sujet, ou mieux, comme fondement. C’est en ces termes que la constitution onto-théo-logique de la pensée cartésienne élaborée par Jean-Luc Marion, permet de suivre le chemin nietzschéen : rapporter à l’ego la manière d’être de toutes les substances est le point de départ d’une généalogie qui vise à dépasser l’ego, tout en montrant sa nécessité à être, qui seule permet au vivant de dire je, à savoir d’être. / The purpose of this doctoral dissertation is to nuance the understanding of the relationship between Descartes and Nietzsche through the cartesian statute of the ego. From this perspective, Heidegger’s interpretation of the link between Descartes and Nietzsche is fundamental. Furthermore, Heidegger defines a fundamental philosophical area explored by both Descartes and Nietzsche. This common area, based on ego’s emergence, tends to exceed the constitutive bounds of metaphysics wherein the Cartesian beginning opens the ego as a form of life within the will to power . His argumentative path leads to a morphological concept of ego— the ego is taken as an effect of the organization of a multiplicity of forces, which take form by becoming a center. The Nietzschean deconstruction is realized through these specific steps: 1) to bring the ego’s statute on an ecology of substance; 2) to dislocate the fundamental certainty of cogito toward an ego-sentiment (Ichgefühl), which situates itself as a seeming-being 3) to reveal the selfness as an abyss, against any interpretations that consider the body as a fundament. At this regard, the onto-théo-logic constitution of Cartesian thought, elaborated by Jean Luc Marion, allows one to follow the Nietzschean approach: by bringing back the ego to the way of being of every substances, it is possible to fix the genealogical starting point to exceed the ego and at the same time to show its necessity to become a being, which only allows life to say I, that is to say to be.

Mémoire numérisé par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal.