Benjamin’s profane uses of theology: The invisible organon

Autores
Naishtat, Francisco
Año de publicación
2019
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
Invisible, but suggestive and fruitful; deprived of any reference to doctrine or ultimate assertive foundations, but nevertheless used in Benjamin like written images, crystallized as “images of thought”; as doctrinally mute as it is heuristically audible, Benjamin’s use of theology reminds us of the ironical use that Jorge Luis Borges himself made of theology and metaphysics as part of his own poetic forms. As such, these images of thought are located both in the place of philosophical use and in the one of methodological cunning or Metis, across the various levels of the corpus: a metaphysics of experience, literary criticism, philosophy of language, theory of history and Marxism. Therefore, accepting that criticism (Kritik) is the visible organon and the object of Benjaminian philosophy, is not theology, then, its invisible organon? What seems to be particular to Benjamin, however, is the agonistic but nevertheless heuristic way in which he intends to use theology in order to upset, disarray, and deconstruct the established philosophy, and specially its dominant trends in the field of the theory of history: historicism, positivism, and the evolutionary Hegelian–Marxist philosophy of history. In this article we try to demonstrate how this theological perspective is applied to a Benjaminian grammar of time. We conclude agonistically, confronting the resulting Benjaminian notion of historical past against Heiddeger’s own vision of historical time.
Fil: Naishtat, Francisco. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Sociales. Instituto de Investigaciones "Gino Germani"; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
Materia
DISGUISE
DISRUPTIVE
HERESY
HISTORICAL TIME
INVISIBILITY
LANGUAGE
MARXISM
MESSIANISM
PAST
REDEMPTIVENESS
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/125373

id CONICETDig_3ef9b72b2c9240873f66c99b0cd7ff5a
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/125373
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Benjamin’s profane uses of theology: The invisible organonNaishtat, FranciscoDISGUISEDISRUPTIVEHERESYHISTORICAL TIMEINVISIBILITYLANGUAGEMARXISMMESSIANISMPASTREDEMPTIVENESShttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/6.3https://purl.org/becyt/ford/6Invisible, but suggestive and fruitful; deprived of any reference to doctrine or ultimate assertive foundations, but nevertheless used in Benjamin like written images, crystallized as “images of thought”; as doctrinally mute as it is heuristically audible, Benjamin’s use of theology reminds us of the ironical use that Jorge Luis Borges himself made of theology and metaphysics as part of his own poetic forms. As such, these images of thought are located both in the place of philosophical use and in the one of methodological cunning or Metis, across the various levels of the corpus: a metaphysics of experience, literary criticism, philosophy of language, theory of history and Marxism. Therefore, accepting that criticism (Kritik) is the visible organon and the object of Benjaminian philosophy, is not theology, then, its invisible organon? What seems to be particular to Benjamin, however, is the agonistic but nevertheless heuristic way in which he intends to use theology in order to upset, disarray, and deconstruct the established philosophy, and specially its dominant trends in the field of the theory of history: historicism, positivism, and the evolutionary Hegelian–Marxist philosophy of history. In this article we try to demonstrate how this theological perspective is applied to a Benjaminian grammar of time. We conclude agonistically, confronting the resulting Benjaminian notion of historical past against Heiddeger’s own vision of historical time.Fil: Naishtat, Francisco. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Sociales. Instituto de Investigaciones "Gino Germani"; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaMultidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute2019-02info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/125373Naishtat, Francisco; Benjamin’s profane uses of theology: The invisible organon; Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute; Religions; 10; 2; 2-2019; 1-162077-1444CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/10/2/93info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.3390/rel10020093info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-29T10:38:35Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/125373instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-29 10:38:35.259CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Benjamin’s profane uses of theology: The invisible organon
title Benjamin’s profane uses of theology: The invisible organon
spellingShingle Benjamin’s profane uses of theology: The invisible organon
Naishtat, Francisco
DISGUISE
DISRUPTIVE
HERESY
HISTORICAL TIME
INVISIBILITY
LANGUAGE
MARXISM
MESSIANISM
PAST
REDEMPTIVENESS
title_short Benjamin’s profane uses of theology: The invisible organon
title_full Benjamin’s profane uses of theology: The invisible organon
title_fullStr Benjamin’s profane uses of theology: The invisible organon
title_full_unstemmed Benjamin’s profane uses of theology: The invisible organon
title_sort Benjamin’s profane uses of theology: The invisible organon
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Naishtat, Francisco
author Naishtat, Francisco
author_facet Naishtat, Francisco
author_role author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv DISGUISE
DISRUPTIVE
HERESY
HISTORICAL TIME
INVISIBILITY
LANGUAGE
MARXISM
MESSIANISM
PAST
REDEMPTIVENESS
topic DISGUISE
DISRUPTIVE
HERESY
HISTORICAL TIME
INVISIBILITY
LANGUAGE
MARXISM
MESSIANISM
PAST
REDEMPTIVENESS
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/6.3
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/6
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Invisible, but suggestive and fruitful; deprived of any reference to doctrine or ultimate assertive foundations, but nevertheless used in Benjamin like written images, crystallized as “images of thought”; as doctrinally mute as it is heuristically audible, Benjamin’s use of theology reminds us of the ironical use that Jorge Luis Borges himself made of theology and metaphysics as part of his own poetic forms. As such, these images of thought are located both in the place of philosophical use and in the one of methodological cunning or Metis, across the various levels of the corpus: a metaphysics of experience, literary criticism, philosophy of language, theory of history and Marxism. Therefore, accepting that criticism (Kritik) is the visible organon and the object of Benjaminian philosophy, is not theology, then, its invisible organon? What seems to be particular to Benjamin, however, is the agonistic but nevertheless heuristic way in which he intends to use theology in order to upset, disarray, and deconstruct the established philosophy, and specially its dominant trends in the field of the theory of history: historicism, positivism, and the evolutionary Hegelian–Marxist philosophy of history. In this article we try to demonstrate how this theological perspective is applied to a Benjaminian grammar of time. We conclude agonistically, confronting the resulting Benjaminian notion of historical past against Heiddeger’s own vision of historical time.
Fil: Naishtat, Francisco. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Sociales. Instituto de Investigaciones "Gino Germani"; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
description Invisible, but suggestive and fruitful; deprived of any reference to doctrine or ultimate assertive foundations, but nevertheless used in Benjamin like written images, crystallized as “images of thought”; as doctrinally mute as it is heuristically audible, Benjamin’s use of theology reminds us of the ironical use that Jorge Luis Borges himself made of theology and metaphysics as part of his own poetic forms. As such, these images of thought are located both in the place of philosophical use and in the one of methodological cunning or Metis, across the various levels of the corpus: a metaphysics of experience, literary criticism, philosophy of language, theory of history and Marxism. Therefore, accepting that criticism (Kritik) is the visible organon and the object of Benjaminian philosophy, is not theology, then, its invisible organon? What seems to be particular to Benjamin, however, is the agonistic but nevertheless heuristic way in which he intends to use theology in order to upset, disarray, and deconstruct the established philosophy, and specially its dominant trends in the field of the theory of history: historicism, positivism, and the evolutionary Hegelian–Marxist philosophy of history. In this article we try to demonstrate how this theological perspective is applied to a Benjaminian grammar of time. We conclude agonistically, confronting the resulting Benjaminian notion of historical past against Heiddeger’s own vision of historical time.
publishDate 2019
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2019-02
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/125373
Naishtat, Francisco; Benjamin’s profane uses of theology: The invisible organon; Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute; Religions; 10; 2; 2-2019; 1-16
2077-1444
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/125373
identifier_str_mv Naishtat, Francisco; Benjamin’s profane uses of theology: The invisible organon; Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute; Religions; 10; 2; 2-2019; 1-16
2077-1444
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/10/2/93
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.3390/rel10020093
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1844614408784838656
score 13.070432