Heidegger, fenomenologia, hermenêutica, existência

Dasein descerra sua estrutura fundamental, ser-em-o-mundo, como uma clareira do AÍ, EM QUE coisas e outros comparecem, COM QUE são compreendidos, DE QUE são constituidos.

Página inicial > Fenomenologia > Parvis Emad & Kenneth Maly: GOTT

Parvis Emad & Kenneth Maly: GOTT

sábado 8 de abril de 2017

The clue for translating Gott  , Götter, Göttern, göttern, and Götterung, as well as for the rendition of the title of section 279, "Wie aber die Götter?" is found in the word Götterung. In understanding, interpreting, and translating this word, we were guided by what might be considered to be the central being-historical insight into what is ownmost to gods, or to god, and differentiates god and gods from be-ing — as articulated in section 126 of Contributions:

Be-ing is not   and can never "be" more-being than a being, but also not less-being than gods, because gods "are" not at all.

If gods, or god, "are" not at all, then how are we to grasp them? The response is that we must grasp them in terms of Götterung. In order to translate this word into English, we were guided by its orienting power which, as a being-historical word, refers neither to an already existing divine being nor to a being that is in the process of "becoming" god. In Contributions the word Götterung distinguishes "the passing of the last   god" from Göttwerdung, which as "god’s becoming" has been a preoccupation of German philosophy from Jakob Böhme to Max Scheler  .

How to translate Götterung? We found "divine unfolding" and "godly unfolding" unacceptable, since the word divine in "divine unfolding" indicates a being, which is what Heidegger is keen to keep away from gods as well as from "the last god" The expression "godly unfolding" would be in danger of a similar misunderstanding. In both cases the word "unfolding" could be mistaken as referring to a being that unfolds. Finally, "divinization" proved not to be an option, because as a noun   this word lacks the dynamism that is inherent in the "passing" of "the last god." Thus in order to translate Götterung, we opted for "godding," because this word comes closest to showing the "dynamism" that is "the last god," avoids the reference to an already existing and extant being, and recognizes and accepts the cleavage of be-ing wherein the passing of "the last god" takes place.

Our rendition of Göttern with "gods’ godding" comes directly from the decision to render Götterung with godding. It is quite clear from various contexts in Contributions that Göttern indicates gods’ manner of godding. Moreover, when seen from within the "dynamism" called godding, the plural "gods" no longer functions as a collective designation for the Greek or other peoples’ gods. Contributions makes this point quite clear:

But the talk of "gods" here does not indicate the decided assertion on the extantness of a plurality over against a singular but is rather meant as the allusion to the undecidedness of the being of gods, whether of one single god or of many gods…. The undecidability concerning which god and whether a god can . . . once again arise, from which way of being of man … is what is named with the name "gods."

We faced one of the many challenges and hazards of this translation work when we had to render into English the title of section 279: "Wie aber die Götter?" Realizing that this title needs a careful interpretation   and elucidation and accepting the fact that a translation cannot afford to do either of the two, we reluctantly decided to translate this title with "What about Gods?" However, the English reader should bear in mind that the word "wie" — rendered here as "what about" — does not refer to beings that already exist and are extant or to beings that existed and were extant and are called gods. Moreover, the reader should be aware that this title is not to be confused with a rhetorical question that as such would already contain the answer, namely, a knowledge about gods. The title of section 279 is intended to point not to a "what" but to a "how" i.e., to how "gods" (which also includes God) come not from within "’religion  "; not as something extant, nor as an expedient of man; rather [they come] from out of be-ing, as its decision. . . .

In short the phrase "what about gods?" is actually intended to ask how gods appear and shine forth from within the cleavage of be-ing.