Abstract
The article expresses the philosophical thoughts of an Italian philosopher, G.Vattimo and his development of the philosophy of M. Heidegger and essential aspects of Vattimo’s philosophy of religion. In the first part, we clarify Vattimo’s interpretation of Heidegger’s destruction of traditional metaphysics, the occurrence of ontological difference and the historical process of the oblivion of Being. According to Vattimo, the oblivion of Being is Heidegger’s reaction to European nihilism. It brings with it his philosophical questions on metaphysics, the substance of technology and course of technical civilisation. For Vattimo, it was only secularisation which enables one to pose questions about God, sense, and meaning. In a postmodern world, the world of technology and science has an ontological meaning for human beings and awakens them to who they are. In the article, we also focus our attention on some problematic points in his philosophy of religion. The first problem is a conflict among differentiated interpretations. Vattimo claims that kenosis has neither anything in common with “indefinite negation of God”, nor does it apologise for any interpretation of the Holy Scripture. In addition, he refuses radical demythologisation. In his opinion, there are no necessary reasons to follow this step. There are some authors who have serious reasons for it and the interpretation of kenosis leads to atheism. We will confront Vattimo’s philosophy with the thinking of the current Czech atheistic philosopher Otakar Funda. The next problem is a reduction of soteriology on the process of human being’s emancipation. There is no place for metaphysical evil here.
Highlights
Vattimo recalls European philosophical tradition, which in the form of Western metaphysics was based on the idea of sense, progress and history leading to one aim
The active nihilism disintegrates the idea of a single truth, but on the other hand, this process of disintegration takes place in Heidegger’s destruction of traditional metaphysics and focuses on the fact that there is no difference between subject and object as a heritage of modern philosophy is no difference
It is interesting that atheism can come to the same conclusions as Vattimo did: he underlines the Hebrew-Christian tradition which has formed the history of Europe, puts the emphasis on love and recalls that the human must be aware of his limits, his humanity which he cannot deify
Summary
Vattimo recalls European philosophical tradition, which in the form of Western metaphysics was based on the idea of sense, progress and history leading to one aim. In several of his works, Vattimo deals with the question of history and connections of transition from modern to postmodern experience—the so-called experience of the end of history—within its context. Vattimo’s thinking is an example of productive connection overcoming metaphysics and a new comprehension of Christianity He is influenced by Nietzsche’ s nihilism and Heidegger’s philosophy, which he discusses more in his works. How can we distinguish a religious attitude from his pseudomorph? Is it important for a religious tradition to distinguish “an illegitimate” and “a right” interpretation of the part (a particular partof the text) from the whole conception of its fundamental text (or complete text)? Which ways of receiving criteria in a religious field are applied through which we may distinguish the legitimate and arbitrary interpretation? Is Vattimo’s concept of “Christianity” not perceived rather in a wider context or can being Christian even be differentiated from being “un-Christian”? Doesn’t he overestimate the power of human caritas? Doesn’t he “degrade” the significance of a prayer, which is an inseparable part of a Christian way of existence? Is the relationship to Christ’s personality notable for the individual’s formation and for his ability to love his neighbour? What does he consider as myth in the Bible? what criteria does he apply to distinguish the mythic from the real? How does he grasp a philosophy of religion in comparison to other recourses (for example phenomenological or atheistic)? Does Vattimo understand Christianity as the religion that can divide in general because Christ brought a “sword” to the world and came to turn a “son against his father” (Matt 10, 34–35)? Do we have to necessarily bind challenge to love, the refusing of the objective structures of reality and the surpassing of metaphysics to a Judeo-Christian tradition? Does philosophy that surpasses metaphysics have this origin ? Does it coincide with biblical thinking, Judeo and Christian tradition to accept homosexual marriage, abortion and euthanasia? Can these religions’
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
