Matija Vlačić Ilirik was one of the pillars of Luther’s Reformation. In a special way, he dedicated himself to one of its most important issues – the understanding of the Scriptures, and can, therefore, be considered a significant instigator of the founding of modern hermeneutics. As an excellent connoisseur of classical languages (Hebrew, Greek and Latin) he recognized the importance and dealt with many issues of language, grammar, logic, and dialectic, as essential prerequisites for understanding everything which exists, and hence (...) of the written text also. In this connection, his skepticism towards philosophy is apparent, since the main source of theological cognition, for him, is revelation, and not the human reason, which was principally destroyed by Original Sin. He found the confirmation of his ideas in the current debates with both proponents and opponents of the Reformation, as well as in his research into church history, wherein he incessantly tried to find the witnesses of the truth, as he perceived it. (shrink)

Matija Vlačić Ilirik was one of the pillars of Luther’s Reformation. In a special way, he dedicated himself to one of its most important issues – the understanding of the Scriptures, and can, therefore, be considered a significant instigator of the founding of modern hermeneutics. As an excellent connoisseur of classical languages he recognized the importance and dealt with many issues of language, grammar, logic, and dialectic, as essential prerequisites for understanding everything which exists, and hence of the written text (...) also. In this connection, his skepticism towards philosophy is apparent, since the main source of theological cognition, for him, is revelation, and not the human reason, which was principally destroyed by Original Sin. He found the confirmation of his ideas in the current debates with both proponents and opponents of the Reformation, as well as in his research into church history, wherein he incessantly tried to find the witnesses of the truth, as he perceived it. (shrink)

Heidegger, first of all, perceives modern thinking to be a source of technology in its partly threatening dimension, though this source was inherited fromGreek thinkers. However, technology and threat, which arises from it, are not some kind of inevitable fate, but are the destiny of Being, which should be calmly awaited in its mysteriousness. For where there are threat and danger, there also is a prospect of salvation – in this way Heidegger adopts Hölderlin’s restrained optimism. Furthermore, salvation presupposes constant (...) inquiry as an expression of the piety of thought. If it does not fall to its proper place, then the forgotness of Being, the abandonment of Being, war and triumph of different modern technologies, which have created a lot of trouble in the technological age, can take root. Therefore, it seems that only enlightened thinking, which is revealed in its inquisitive piety, can offer some way out. (shrink)

The relation between philosophy and theology in Martin Heidegger’s thought is multilayered and tense. On the one hand, he admits that his theological origin, i.e. his Christian-Catholic rootedness, determines the direction of his thought, while on the other hand, he has been fighting against theology that is too much tinted with philosophy. At the same time, he opposes that his thought be called theistic or atheistic. In the analytic of Dasein he wants to create assumptions that would enable him to (...) talk about God, gods or divine in general. This brings him close to mysticism, and even more so to mythology, which is revealed in his interpretation of Hölderlin. Nietzsche’s talk about God’s death helps him in this context. However, neither with Nietzsche nor with Heidegger does this death look like real death. Both thinkers hold that death strikes that God who has in philosophy and theology been made a being. After the thinking of the Being had thrown light upon their thought, God of Biblical theology and above all God whose coming is expected according to Heidegger cannot be left to death, because he evades human comprehension, especially oneDas Verhältnis zwischen Philosophie und Theologie im Denken von Martin Heidegger ist vielschichtig und gespannt. Einerseits gibt Heidegger zu, daß seine theologische Herkunft, d.h. seine christlich-katholische Verwurzelung, für sein Denken auch richtungsweisend ist, andererseits kämpft er sein ganzes Leben lang gegen eine Theologie, die allzu sehr philosophisch geprägt ist. Zur gleichen Zeit wehrt er sich dagegen, daß sein Denken theistisch oder atheistisch genannt wird. In einer Daseinsanalytik will er Voraussetzungen schaffen, um von Gott, von Göttern, oder vom Göttlichem überhaupt sprechen zu können. Dies bringt ihn in die Nähe von Mystik, ja sogar in die Nähe von Mythologie, was vor allem in seiner Hölderlininterpretation seinen Niederschlag findet. In diesem Zusammenhang hilft ihm auch Nietzsches Rede vom Tode Gottes. Dieser Tod aber scheint weder bei Nietzsche noch bei Heidegger ein echter zu sein. Der Tod trifft bei beiden Denkern den Gott, der in Philosophie und in Theologie zum Seienden gemacht wurde. Der Gott der biblischen Theologie, und vor allem der Gott, dessen Ankunft, nach Heidegger, zu erwarten ist, nachdem das Seins-Denken ihr Gedachtes gelichtet hat, kann nicht dem Tode überliefert werden, weil er sich dem Zugriff des Menschen, vor allem in Form von Philosophie und Theologie, entzieht. (shrink)

The relation between philosophy and theology in Martin Heidegger’s thought is multilayered and tense. On the one hand, he admits that his theological origin, i.e. his Christian-Catholic rootedness, determines the direction of his thought, while on the other hand, he has been fighting against theology that is too much tinted with philosophy. At the same time, he opposes that his thought be called theistic or atheistic. In the analytic of Dasein he wants to create assumptions that would enable him to (...) talk about God, gods or divine in general. This brings him close to mysticism, and even more so to mythology, which is revealed in his interpretation of Hölderlin. Nietzsche’s talk about God’s death helps him in this context. However, neither with Nietzsche nor with Heidegger does this death look like real death. Both thinkers hold that death strikes that God who has in philosophy and theology been made a being. After the thinking of the Being had thrown light upon their thought, God of Biblical theology and above all God whose coming is expected according to Heidegger cannot be left to death, because he evades human comprehension, especially one in the form of philosophy and theology. (shrink)