In this article criticism of the belief of existential basis of the idea of guilt is presented: the belief that the idea of guilt can exist only owing the existential guilt. Additionally, a hypothesis is presented that it is rather denotation and not ontology that may be the basis or condition of this idea. The author concentrated predominantly on texts by Martin Heidegger and showed stands concerning guilt and donation therein. To justify the presented hypothesis he also addressed the works of Jean-Luc Marion. The issue of condition of the idea of guilt can be viewed in a light that the existential problem may remain detached from donation and the very phenomenology of donation needs to be supplemented with the category of guilt.
In his phenomenology, Jean-Luc Marion shows how a phenomenon that appears in and out of itself evades the metaphysical demand of grounding. Classical philosophy has acknowledged phenomena only in so far as they can be sanctioned by the concepts of the intellect. This holds good also of Husserl's constitutive ego. Now, Marion distinguishes between such intuitively 'poor phenomena' and the 'saturated phenomena' that exceed the intentional consciousness; they are given not by the consciousness but to the consciousness in an excess of intuition. This 'gift of appearance' is Marion's main concern, in the visible in general, and in painting in particular. But whereas idols only reflect our own desire to see and to be seen, icons surprise us by the gaze the saint directs on us. A picture is the scene of a possible revelation; and the revelation is nothing but the phenomenon taken in its fullest meaning: intuitive saturation at its maximum. A crucial question, nonetheless, remains: What is the relation between revelation as a phenomenological possibility, and Revelation as a theological dogma of the utmost importance?
The aim of the article is to approach the proximity of Jean-Luc Marion´s phenomenology to mysticism. Marion´s transcendence to mysticism can be seen in two directions: in the interpretation of Dionysius the Areopagite´s work, and in the understanding of saturated phenomena. Marion claims that Dionysius the Aeropagite indicates a new pragmatic function of language, targeting God who overcomes all the names. The discourse of hymn and praise of God does not lie in predicting attributes. I tis not a masked prediction, but it is outside the dual framework of true and false. Marion also believes that man, as an image of God, is not equal to his icon. His reflections can be understood and interpreted in such a way that two incomprehensible and loving beings come together in the encounter of God and man. Here we can see the first condition, assumption and the very possibility of mysticism as such. The intersections of phenomenology and literature are obvious, but phenomenology still remains both an invitations and a challenge for literary theory.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.