Heidegger, Neoplatonism, and the History of Being: Relation as Ontological Ground

by James Filler

This book argues that Western philosophy's traditional understanding of Being as substance is incorrect, and demonstrates that Being is fundamentally Relationality. To make that argument, the book examines the history of Western philosophy's evolving conception of being, and shows how this tradition has been dominated by an Aristotelian understanding of substance and his corresponding understanding of relation. First, the book establishes that the original concept of Being in ancient Western philosophy was relational, and traces this relational understanding of Being through the Neoplatonists. Then, it follows the substantial understanding of Being through Aristotle and the Scholastics to reach its crisis in Descartes. Finally, the book demonstrates that Heidegger represents a recovery of the original, relational understanding of Being.

Genres: Philosophy

434 pages, Kindle Edition

Published May 4, 2023

Reviews

[Edmund Tunklev · Rating 4 out of 5]

Är världen beskaffad av enskilda ting som relaterar till varandra, eller är det snarare tingen som ploppar upp som svampar ur en bädd av relationalitet?
James Filler verkar hävda det senare och beklagar sig över att västerländsk tanke kört fast sig i det tidigare sedan Aristoteles. Boken försöker då ta oss från en Aristotelisk "substansontologi" till en "relationell ontologi."

VÄLDIGT cool tanke.
Slirar väl med modern kognitionsvetenskap som visat hur perceptionen av föremål går ut på kontraster och dess relation till en kontext. Men även med fynd i fysiken, som relativitetsteori eller det att partiklar kan vara på flera platser samtidigt, gör en ju så förvirrad att man undrar om vi kanske feltolkat verkligheten från första början... Är allt dessa enskilda ting, eller är saker mer sammanlänkade än vi tror?
Upplevelsen av att läsa boken: Som att traggla upp för ett berg genom midjedjup snö för att nå en makalöst inspirerande utsikt på toppen, men då har spåret bakom en snöat igen så man fattar inte riktigt hur man kom upp...
Skulle jag rekommendera den? Bara till en masochist, eller min fiende. Varje delkapitel va typ: "Hur kan vi veta att tänkare X hade denna relationella attityden? JO! Låt mig ge dig flera babeltorn av blockcitat tills du ber om nåd så ska resonemanget förhoppningsvis framgå."
Var tesen värdefull ändå? JAA!
Alla borde känna till detta. Boken förändrade grundligt min syn på verkligheten och införlivade den med en filosofiskt välgrundad mystik. Men för en lekman som mig själv var det nog rätt dumt att nå dit genom att läsa boken. John Vervaeke har haft många offentliga diskussioner om boken och de duger säkert finfint.

[Beauregard Bottomley · Rating 5 out of 5]

I applaud the erudite presentation in this book and I recommend this book for that reason alone.

To save the Trinity, the world’s understanding about itself needs to be redirected from what was thought (substance as reality) to a new paradigm (relational). For obvious reasons, this book doesn’t dwell as much on Spinoza or Hegel as he did on other Philosophers. As an aside, Hegel's Philosophy of Religion lectures had another just as clever defense for the Trinity and I read that last week so that is still on my mind.

I enjoy Plato, Aristotle, Plotinius, pseudo-Dionysius, Nicolas of Cusa, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, Hubert Dreyfus and Whitehead as much as the author does.

Nicolas of Cusa is needed by the author to justify nothing as a something giving the existence of contradictions as certainty. Pseudo-Dionysius gave authority as proof in 500 A.D. when substance as reality was supplanting relational mysticisms. Aquanis needed the fictional character Dionysius and cited him over 1700 times for proving the certainty of the Trinity with reason preceding faith.

Heidegger embraces Nietzsche until he doesn’t and walks away from Being and Time with his four-path way ‘earth, god, man, world’ mysticism. Though he never denies being as present-at-hand, ready-at-hand, and dasein through care of the future through the past as seen by the now. He provides a foundation for being then starts second guessing himself later on.

Descartes assumes a world away and gets pure substance while forgetting the world is out there while Husserl recentered the Ego and then Heidegger inverts that formulation. Hubert Dreyfus butchers Heidegger and never acknowledges that the authentic self for Heidegger is being a Nazi. Though, don’t get me wrong, I’m glad I started my Heidegger journey with Dreyfus, but by the end I started to realize some holes in his teachings. Kant recenters the world, but this book does not dwell on Kant at all.

The author concludes his reconceptualization of all of 2500 years of Philosophy of being with Whitehead. Whitehead sneaks in emergent properties with magic through his pernicious teleological certainty. The Trinity will pop out of magic thinking regardless.

Overall, this book tries to overturn 2500 years of thought about being through using the philosophy and seeing the world from his perspective. The book is highly entertaining storytelling and just because I don’t reach his conclusions doesn’t mean that I didn’t enjoy the journey. I did.

[William Kuevogah · Rating 3 out of 5]

Worth exploring further