Jesus, Heidegger, and a Tiny Word

Reconsidering Truth: Jesus, Heidegger, and a Tiny Word As Presented at the 2008 Baptist Association of Philosophy Teachers Conference Ouachita Baptist University, Arkadelphia, AR J. Zachary Bailes In this paper I want to talk about two different conceptions of truth. According to one conception as old as philosophy itself truth is a correspondence of a thought and reality. The other conception of truth comes from Heidegger, who thinks truth is not about correspondence, but rather cp"ÐwpxgknkpiÑ"qt"Ðfkuenquwtg0Ñ"Chvgt"gzcokpkpi"vjgug"vyq"eqpegrvkqpu"qh"vtwvj"K"yknn use Heidegger to illuminate sections of the Gospel of John where Jesus declares himself the truth. I want to offer a few suggestions as to what Jesus might mean by calling himself the truth. The correspondence theory traces its roots back to Aristotle. In one instance Aristotle says, ÐVjku"ku"engct"htqo"vjg"fghkpkvkqp"qh"vtwvj"cpf"hcnukty; for to deny what is or to affirm what is not ku"hcnug."yjgtgcu"vq"chhkto"yjcv"ku"cpf"vq"fgp{"yjcv"ku"pqv"ctg"vtwg0Ñ 1 Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle, defines truth as Ðthe adequation of the intellect and thing.Ñ2 J.P. Moreland makes the same point in more contemporary jargon: ÐVtwvj"crrgctu"vq"dg"c"tgncvkqp"qh"eqttgurqpfgpeg" dgvyggp"c"vjqwijv"cpf"vjg"yqtnf0"Kh"c"vjqwijv"tgcnn{"fguetkdgu"vjg"yqtnf"ceewtcvgn{."kv"ku"vtwg0Ñ 3 Each definition describes the thought that we have when some bit of language and some thing in our experience match up. When these two match up we have truth. On a basic level, if I assert that the light is red and the light is actually red, I have asserted truly. Alternatively, Heidegger presents truth in a different way. Heidegget"fqgupÓv"lgvvkuqp" correspondence; he tries to figure out what makes it possible. Heidegger examines correspondence theory of truth and thinks truth has been made into correctness. Correspondence for Heidegger only means that we are correct about the way things appear. Heidegger presents truth as freedom, which for Heidegigt"ogcpu"Ðngvvkpi"dgkpiu"dg0Ñ Heidegger does not runaway from correspondence, but seeks to give the condition for correspondence. To begin this discussion we must first examine why Heidegger calls our human reality Dasein. JgkfgiigtÓu"vjqwijv"tgnkgu"qp"vjg"Ðontological differenceÑ which means that there are gpvkvkgu"qp"vjg"qpg"jcpf."cpf"qp"vjg"qvjgt"yg"jcxg"vjg"ÐkupguuÑ"qh"vjg"gpvkv{0 We might use the yqtf"ÐcuÑ"yjgp"fkuewuukpi"vjg"qpvqnqikcal difference (I see the Bible as the Word of God). The ÐkupguuÑ"ku"yjcv"Jgkfgiigt"tghgtu"vq"cu"dgkpi0"Dgkpi"ogcpu"vjg"xctkgf"yc{u"kp"yjkej"uqogvjkpi" can be understood, its significance. There are a few finer points that better clarify what Heidegger means by being. One is that entities have existence with or without humans but entities do not have being or significance without relation to human concern. Without human dgkpiu"vjgtgÓu"pq"ukipkhkecpeg0"Secondly, significance does not exist separate from entities. Being or significance is always significance of an entity. These two exist together like chips and salsa. Finally, to make the ontological distinction belongs only to humans, that is, the ability to ascertain significance of an entity is strictly a human ability. Dasein describes human existence. Dasein describes how we are thrust into an existence yjkej"ku"hknngf"ykvj"rquukdknkvkgu0"KvÓu"cnuq"cpqvjgt"yc{"qh"fguetkdkpi"qwt"gpicigogpv"ykvj" particular entities. Significance is revealed due to our particular interests or concerns. Our human reality, Dasein, ku"vjg"qpn{"tgcnkv{"cdng"vq"cum"vjg"swguvkqpu"uwej"cu"Ðyj{AÑ"qt"Ðyj{"pqvAÑ"Qwt" ability to ask and inquire about truth does not immediately give an answer. It is important to note that for Heidegger truth is not the Latin veritas Î the propositional truth we have long sought. Rather Heidegger chooses aletheia to name truth. Aletheia at the onset of the western tradition jcf"vjg"eqppqvcvkqp"qh"ÐwpeqpegcnogpvÑ"qt"Ðfkuenquwtg0Ñ" For Heidegger we can only make assertions (i.e. correspondence) once this disclosure qeewtu0"K"uwiiguv"JgkfgiigtÓu"eqpegrvkqp"is understood as a particular context. The context allows for a conversation of sorts to occur. Agreement is made upon a context from which to speak and truth statements may be made. I want to offer an example that will help shed light on what Heidegger is attempting. Imagine a beer bottle sitting in front of two subjects: an alcoholic; and a bottle collector. Htqo"cp"cneqjqnkeÓu"eqpvgzv"vjg"dggt"dqvvng"ku"qply thatÏa bottle containing a bitter elixir. It is a means to get drunk. Certainly, without this fine elixir he will most certainly become ill. The bottle collector seeks some kind of economic and/or historical value in the bottle itself. As particular bottles grow in age their value may increase. The collector might also want to make inferences about a particular culture. Two separate truths can be asserted from two separate eqpvgzvu0"Vjg"cneqjqnke"eqwnf"uc{"*kp"c"tcvjgt"unwttgf"urggej+."ÐVjcv"ku"ogcpu"vq"igv"ftwpm0Ñ"Vjg" eqnngevqt"fgenctgu."ÐVjcvÓu"c"dqvvng"ocmgu"og"oqpg{"qt"rtqxkfgu"kpukijv"cdqwv"c"ewnvwtg0Ñ"Yg"ecp" see both are true, but only after we have placed ourselves in the respective contexts. Moreover when we are in a particular context we con not extend the se assertions to other contexts, because each context is substantially different. Heidegger will act as a luminary for the self-declaring truths of Jesus. Throughout this endeavor the question that must be kept in the forefront of the discussiop"ku<"ÐYjcv"pgeguukv{"ku" JgkfgiigtÓu"eqpegrvkqp"kp"fkuewuukqp"qh"Iqf."ngv"cnqpg"Lguwu0Ñ" We Christians find ourselves involved in a context beginning when God created, ex nihilo, the universe. Our story is prefaced by the story of the Jews. From that story, a story of redemption, grace and love unfolds. The fullest expression of the Christian story ku"hqwpf"kp"EjtkuvÓu"tguwttgevkqp0 That fact is hard to argue. However, leading up to his resurrection Jesus angers most people, and confuses others (I speak in the present tense because Jesus still does). One such mystical ku"Lqjp"36<8."kp"yjkej"Lguwu"uc{u."ÐK"co"vjg"yc{."vjg"vtwvj."cpf"vjg"nkijv0" Pq"qpg"eqogu"vq"vjg"hcvjgt"gzegrv"vjtqwij"og0Ñ"Yg"eqwnf"egtvckpn{"tgcf"vjku"cu"Lguwu"dgkpi"vjg" magic key that unlocks a secret path. This path, leads to God and eternal salvation. This key unlocks the secret path, of which few know. I want to suggest another reading through Heidegger. And, this reading begins with a Tiny Yqtf0"KvÓu"vjg"C-word (not the bad one), but the word used for truth, aletheia. Interestingly enough it is found both in Heidegger and in the Gospel of John. 4 Jgkfgiigt"uc{u."ÐYguvgtp" thinking in its beginning conceived this open region as ta aletheia , the unconcealed. If we translation aletheia cu"ÐwpeqpegcnogpvÑ"tcvjgt"vjcp"ÐvtwvjÑ"vjku"vtcpuncvkqp"ku"pqv"ogtgn{"oqtg" literal; it contains the directive to rethink the ordinary concept of truth in the sense of correctness of statements and to think it back to that still uncomprehened disclosedness and disclosure of dgkpiu0Ñ Vjku"tcvjgt"uocnn"ukoknctkv{"rtqxkfgu"c"vgzvwcn"eqppgevkqp"dgvyggp"JgkfgiigtÓu" conception of truth and the Gospel of John, but allows for a possibility of connecting JgkfgiigtÓu"eqpegrvkqp"qh"vtwvj"eqpegrvwcnn{"ykvj"yjcv"Lguwu"okijv"dg"uc{kpi"kp"vjg"LqjpÓu"36th Chapter. Jesus faces challenges concerning the old guard versus the new guard. Jesus is the new law cpf"vjg"Rjctkuggu"fqpÓv"rctvkewnctn{"nkmg"kv0"Pgxgt"okpf"vjg"fkuekrngu"yjq"cv"gxgt{"vwtp"ukorn{" fqpÓv"igv"yjcv"Lguwu"ku"vgcejkpi0"Kt would be like having a student who has all the passion a teacher could ever desire from a student. But, every time you teach them something and then see kh"vjg{Óxg"ngctpgf"kv."vjg{"ukorn{"uvctg"dncpmn{0"Ykvj"vjgug"ejcnngpigu"Lguwu"eqpvkpwgf"vq"vgcej0" Jesus calling himself the truth pits himself against the law, which Jews had considered to be the truth. Jesus refers to himself as the truth because he is what makes the entire deliverance pcttcvkxg"ocmg"ugpug0"Cu"Lqjp"Ecrvwq"uvcvgu."ÐKp"vjg"Ejtkuvkcp"vtcfktion, the force of the event that calls to us and overtakes us in the name of God arises from the cross, where all the lines of hqteg"kp"Ejtkuvkcpkv{"kpvgtugev0Ñ5 LguwuÓ"tguwttgevkqp"allows Jesus to become the lens that focuses the blurred light of the salvation narrative. Up to the crucifixion, this lens that focuses the salvation narrative, Jesus dealt with questions of truth not only from those who followed him, but those that would eventually condemn him. Pilate, in John 18:33-38 has a discussion with Jesus asking Jesus if he thinks he is a king. Jesus responds that his kingdom is not here, because if it was, his followers would protect him from being killed. Then Jesus tells Pilate, in verse 37, that his purpose was to speak about truth and that whoever belongs to the truth listens to him0"Rkncvg"swkemn{"tgurqpfu"ykvj."ÐYjcv"ku"vtwvjAÑ" After asking this powerful question he turns and leaves the room. Pilate has become the perfect ironist. He does not accept the truth and has no solid conception or thought of the truth. Pilate does not seem concerned at all with questions of truth. Postmodernists may pigeonhole themselves into becoming like Pilate with respect to truth. Asking the question but leaving it unanswered due to a seemingly lack of significance. My task is to provide a conception of truth ykvj"tgurgev"vq"Lguwu"vjcv"rtqxkfgu"cp"cpuygt"vq"RkncvgÓu"swguvkqp0" To speak in Heideggarian terms Jesus is the disclosure, the context, reveled to us through the resurrection so that we might speak and make assertions about God. Heidegger thinks that this disclosure calls to us. For Christians the call is revealed through the resurrection of Christ. Our friends in John hearing Jesus tell them that He is the way, the truth, and the light might have easily been cqphwugf0"Vjg{"fkfpÓv"jcxg"vjg"hqtvwpg"qh"tgcfkpi"vjg"uvqt{"htqo"dgikppkpi"vq"gpf0" Cu"Jgkfgiigt"uvcvgu."ÐVq"gpicig"qpgugnh"ykvj"vjg"fkuenqugfpguu"qh"dgkpiu"ku"pqv"vq"nqug" oneself in them; rather, such engagement withdraws in the face of beings in order that they might reveal themselves with respect to what and how they are, and in order that presentative eqttgurqpfgpeg"okijv"vcmg"kvu"uvcpfctf"htqo"vjgo0Ñ6 Disclosedness cannot be forced to occur, it must be revealed and in the deliverance narrative the disclosure is Jesus by means of the resurrection. Jgkfgiigt"uvcvgu."ÐVtwvj"ku"pqv"c"hgcvwtg"qh"eqttgev"propositions that are asserted of cp"Ðqdlgev<"d{"c"jwocp"Ðuwdlgev<"cpf"vjgp"ctg"xcnkf"somewhereÈtcvjgt"vtwvj"ku"fkuenquwtg"qh" beings through which an openness guugpvkcnn{"wphqnfu0Ñ7 Uncovering or discovering truth does not happen. Dasein does not discover or make truth. Truth, for Heidegger is revealed. It is made known to us. There is a revelation of sorts that occurs. For Christians, truth unfolds through the resurrection. Heidegger helps us better understand what to call the miraculous event of the resurrection. Take The Brothers Karamazov for example. One of the most powerful and often used ugevkqpu"qh"vjg"dqqm"ku"ecnngf"ÐVjg"Itcpf"Kpswkukvqt0Ñ"Vjg"uvqt{"ks told between two brothers, Ivan and Alyosha. There are two points to be made from this book. First of all, I can only make assertions about the relationship between the two brothers once I have agreed on the context that ku"vjg"dqqm0"Kv"yqwnfpÓv"ocmg"ugpse to say Ivan and Alyosha are brothers. Qualifying the uvcvgogpv"ykvj."ÐKp"vjg"DtqvjgtÓu"Mctcoc¦qxÈÑ"yqwnf"ejcpig"vjg"uvcvgogpv"ukipkhkecpvn{0" Oqtgqxgt."Cn{qujc"ku"vjg"rkxqvcn"ejctcevgt"yjkej"jgnru"wu"wpfgtuvcpf"dgvvgt"Fquvq{gxum{Óu" meaning(s). For example, the theme of long-suffering is shown through the character, or better yet, Alyosha as the foil for every character helps the reader to understand the flaw with each one. We could many assertions, but only after we have understood Alyosha as the lens by which to read the story. The same goes for Jesus and the salvation narrative. We could say based on part of the narrative (the Hebrew Scriptures) any number of things, but they might not be as accurate for Christians because we have not read them through the lens of Jesus. Heidegger clearly (as clear as Heidegger can be) understands truth to be a reception of a call and learning of a context. Only after this may be we even begin to make assertions. I see Jesus telling all those around them that what you havg"ngctpgf"ku"xcnwcdng."dwv"IqfÓu" story of redemption continues, and it is within me. Without Jesus we may not fully understand the salvation narrative, nor would we be able to inquire about the eschatological possibilities of this narrative. Elsewhere in John, Jesus tells the disciples that they will be truly his disciples if they obey his teachings and words. The word used for truly in the Greek Text uses the base aletheia. The hwnn"hqteg."kp"Jgkfgiictkcp."yqwnf"dg."Ðnkxkpi"kp"hwnn"fkuenquwtg0Ñ"Jgkfgiigt"might say call it Ðreceiving and living in the context that is Jesus.Ñ LguwuÓ"nkhg"cpf"vgcejkpiu"dgeqog"eqorngvg" with the resurrection and we are able to be written into the narrative when we accept the call to be like Jesus. The way of life needed to live in God is dictated by Jesus in John 8:31-32. Jesus tells them they will truly be his disciples if they follow his word. Aletheus is traditionally vtcpuncvgf"cu"Òvtwn{0Ó"Heidegger okijv"ycpv"vq"ecnn"kv"Ðnkxkpi"ykvjkp"wpeqpegcnogpv0Ñ"VjgtgÓu"pqv" a particularly accurate word for what Heidegger requires. Heidegger describes this by referring to the essence of truth as the essence of freedom. Heidegger relies heavily upon a particular eqpegrv"qh"htggfqo0"Htggfqo"ku"pqv"yjcv"vjg"oqvvq"qh"Pgy"Jcorujktg"enckou."ÐNive free or fkg0Ñ"Htggfqo"ku"pqv"c"uvtgvej"cpf"uvtwiing"htqo"iqxgtpogpvcn"v{tcpp{"qt"eqpvtqn0"Tcvjgt." Heidegger xkgyu"htggfqo"cu"cp"cevkxg"gpicigogpv"ykvj"dgkpiu0"Jgkfgiigt"uvcvgu."Ðhtggfqo"ku" engagement in the disclosure qh"dgkpiu"cu"uwej0Ñ8 Elsewhere Heifgiigt"uvcvgu."ÐHtggfqo."wpfgtuvqqf"cu"ngvvkpi"dgkpiu"dg."ku"vjg"fulfillment and consummation qh"vjg"guugpeg"qh"vtwvj"kp"vjg"ugpug"qh"vjg"fkuenquwtg"qh"dgkpiu0Ñ 9 JgkfgiigtÓu" concept of truth requires a remembering and constant referring back to what is required to be engaged with other beings. To be in truth, requires a rather nasty and violent thrusting outside of ourselves. We must constantly make ourselves aware of other beings. Jesus words of needing to live by his words and teachings are similar. They constantly awake us and bring us out of our qyp"cevkqp0"Lguwu"vgcejkpiu"rtqxkfg"c"yc{"vq"dgeqog"tgoqxgf"htqo"qpgÓu"qyp"fgvgtokpgf" action. JgkfgiigtÓu"eqpegrvkqp"qh"vtwvj"rtqxkfgu"vjg"eqpfkvkqp"d{"yjkej"yg"ecp"ocmg"cuugtvkqpu0" When we read the Gospel Story kp"nkijv"qh"JgkfgiigtÓu"eqpegrvkqp"yg"ecp"ugg"vjcv"Lguwu"ycupÓv" uc{kpi."ÐK"co"vjg"yc{."vjg"eqttgevpguu."cpf"vjg"nkijv0Ñ"Tcvjgt."Lguwu"ycu"kphqtokpi"jku"hqnnqygtu" vjcv"IqfÓu"pcttcvkxg"qpn{"ocmgu"ugpug"yjgp"{qw"tgcf"vjtqwij"og0"Vtwvj."kp"vjg"Jgkfgiictkcp" sense, does not close off possibility for making assertions, but rather allows us to be more specific about what we assert. So what happens to a discussion of God when we choose correspondence rather than Heidegger? Kh"yg"vcmg"LguwuÓ statements of truth at face value and interpret them using the correspondence theory alone could we still discuss God? That is to say beyond saying that Jesus is the way to God do we need to actually discuss God? I hope that through this paper what has been shown is that HeidegigtÓu"conception of truth allows and provides the gourd for a richer discussion of God. Not only must we account for Jesus but also talk about the author, God. Similar to know how we read a book we are concerned chiefly about the characters, but we do always wonder about the author. To stop at assertions leave us without the meat of a conversationÏit is the bologna sandwich ykvjqwv"vjg"dqnqipc0"JgkfgiigtÓu"eqpegrvkqp"qh"vtwvj" provides a starting point from which we can make assertions not only about Jesus, but also about God. 1 2 Aristotle, Metaphysics, Trans. Richard Hope, (Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan University Press, 1952), 1011 B25 Summa Quanta Book I Ch. 59 #2 3 4 J.P Moreland, Scaling the Secular City, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Company, 1987), 81-82. [2] [3] [4] [5] 5 [6] John Caputo, The Weakness of God, (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2006), 43. Martin Heidegger, Martin Heidegger Basic Writings0"gf0"Fcxkf"Hctgnn"Mtgnn."ÐOn the Essence of TruthÑ"*Ucp" Francisco: Harper Collins, 1993) , 125. 7 Ibid., 127 8 Ibid., 126 9 Ibid., 127 6