God as the foundation of being or as the pledge of meaning. Second, there's his
work on ... The second step is about the name of Marion's new game. It's called.
Australian eJournal of Theology 18.3 (December 2011)
Book Review / JeanLuc Marion
Jean‐Luc Marion: A Theo‐Logical Introduction Robyn Horner Burlington, 2005, ISBN 0754636615 Robyn Horner’s book is a reader friendly introduction to Jean‐Luc Marion. The sentences have a low fog‐index and the argument flows through a neat logical structure. She begins with four chapters that situate Marion within phenomenology and its headaches, as well as within the philosophical perspectives and postmodern imperatives which help to define his work. She moves into another four chapters that describe and evaluate his belief that theology bankrupts metaphysics. The final three chapters consider three things: the face‐lift he has given to phenomenology; his concept of phenomena that are “saturated”; and his belief that love overthrows phenomenology, metaphysics and theology. There are three appendices: a bibliography of Marion’s work; a bibliography of comments on Marion’s work; and three sets of excerpts from selected Marion texts. All this appears between a helpful introduction and a postscript in which Horner looks back at what she has done, as well as pointing towards work that still has to be done, both by Marion and those who are into what he’s doing. Saying too much about what Horner has done would be inexcusable. But perhaps some hints can be forgiven. The unifying theme of Part Two is Marion’s attempt to establish the theological bankruptcy of metaphysics. First, there’s his idea that distance undermines the concept of God as the foundation of being or as the pledge of meaning. Second, there’s his work on what icons, love and gifts point to, a trilogy that Marion has continued to enrich with a fresh understanding of phenomenology. Third, there’s his quarrel with Descartes and other philosophers. They have to face two merciless swords. To what extent have they perpetuated metaphysics? How successfully have they overthrown it? Their demon has a name: Onto‐Theo‐Logy. And Pascal’s theology of Charity helps to exorcise it. Finally, when the going gets tough, the tough read Heidegger. And they read him to find ammunition to overthrow metaphysical thinking before targeting metaphysical theology and the demon that drives Onto‐Theo‐Logy. If that’s the main story‐line in Part Two, there’s a background story around a question that doesn’t receive a firm answer. Has Marion overthrown metaphysics or only moved its home? Has Onto‐Theo‐Logy surrendered Being and Meaning to whoever wants to occupy them, because it enjoys its new location in Icons, Love and Gifts?
277
AEJT 18.3 (December 2011)
Book Review / JeanLuc Marion
Part Three takes three steps towards answering these questions. The first step takes us back to Part One and, in particular, to the introduction to phenomenology (chapter 3). It deals with Marion’s arguments for givenness as what happens on phenomenology’s bottom line. The second step is about the name of Marion’s new game. It’s called “saturated phenomena”. It’s about showing that events, idols, flesh, icons, revelation ‐ and perhaps a whole lot more ‐ are “excessive”. The final step is about love; about individuality (ipseity) and otherness (alterity); about independence and dependence. And Marion’s aim is ambitious. It’s to show that philosophy hasn’t understood love, either eros or agape. If books are judged by the questions they raise, this is a very good book. On the one hand, Horner often interrupts her exposition to underline questions that are raised by Marion’s ideas, to point to questions that have to be tackled, or tackled more adequately. For example, along the way she often worries about the extent to which Marion’s belief that his theology bankrupts metaphysics is an assertion rather than a demonstration. Also, she isn’t sure that he’s removed Derrida’s doubts about whether it’s possible to overcome metaphysics entirely. On the other hand, there are less introverted questions about Marion’s ideas that are raised by Horner’s book. For example, philosophers of religion will respect Marion’s decision to confine his attention to the god that Christians worship. At the same time, they may worry about whether some of his insights apply to other gods, the god that Muslims worship, or the Homeric gods that inhabit places like Horace’s Odes. So, is Marion a theologian, as well as a philosopher? I still have to read Marion for myself, but, given what’s in Horner’s book, I think he’s following both vocations. So, perhaps the tough question about his reflections on love and on God as first lover is the extent to which he is willing to embrace what the Bible tells us about these things. I mean, does Marion and those who are working with his ideas accept that the Bible requires us to affirm both that God is love (1 John 4:8 and 16) and that he has blood on his hands (Exodus 12:28‐30)? In other words, to what extent are Marion’s insights on God and love informed by the robust affirmations of the Bible rather than by contemporary sentimentality and political correctness? Because I still have to read Marion for myself, I don’t know how to answer these questions. But the more he smooths the robust conception of love that informs the Passover story, the more he will sound like a philosophical (“no name brand”) theologian than like a Christian theologian. In all these ways, Robyn Horner has helped us to see and to appreciate the saturated work which Jean‐Luc Marion has produced and is still producing. Reviewer: James Moulder is a retired business school academic who lives in Melbourne, Australia. His hobbies are theology and poetry. Email:
[email protected]
278
