In “God Without Being,” Jean Luc Marion conducts a phenomenological study of the theological concepts of the ‘eidolon,’ or idol, and the ‘eikon,’ or icon. While sharing many philosophical correlations with Martin Heidegger’s philosophy in “Being and Time,” Marion provocatively challenges many of the core ideas of Heidegger’s ontological study.
Heidegger’s attempt to create a fundamental ontology deals mainly with ‘being’ in terms of what he calls ‘Dasein.’ Heidegger lays out this rough skeleton of ‘being’ by examining the ways in which Dasein relates to the world. Dasein can be defined as that to which its own being is a matter of concern; an entity capable of questioning its being or that which has an awareness of its being. By stating that Dasein’s ‘being’ is equiprimordial with and always accompanied by its understanding of self-as-being, Heidegger attempts to abolish the commonly held philosophical notion of a mere subject-object relationship between the self which acts upon the external world. The entirety of Dasein’s understanding is directly resulting from its understanding of itself in relation to its experience with the world in terms of being. No experience can exist between subject-object alone. Rather, there is ‘being’ which comes a priori to all experience. When a person talks and looks at another they are, in fact, experiencing themselves in various modes of being such as: ‘being-in-the-world,” “being-with-others” as well as a vast number of other ways.
Despite the fact that our experience is always presupposed by our own being, Heidegger states that we may not always realize or act in accordance with our actual being: we may exist ‘inauthentically.’ Authentic being, according to Heidegger, is primarily defined as the recognition of the self as an individual for whom its own being is a matter of concern. This largely involves recognizing the possibilities of our own being, particularly in our understanding of our own being as it relates to death. Essential to this understanding of self is the realization that one’s existence is accompanied by its constant relationship with the world through the act of intending upon it. Recognition of these intentions is an important aspect of the authentic being of Dasein because it is through this understanding of how the self interacts with the world that we are able to more accurately describe reality in terms of how it appears to us. We are therefore allowed a much more realistic perspective from which to gauge our experiences. Phenomenology, which is at the core of Heidegger’s thought, is primarily this: the study of the appearance of things as they are given to us. Authentic Dasein, instead of merely intending upon the world, step outside of this limiting perspective and examine what the relationship of intentionality between the self and the object consists of. By adding this third dimension to our experience we are able to recognize the self as that which it genuinely is and that which is truly possible within its realm of being.
Inauthentic being is characterized as a falling into the ‘they,’ an anonymous abyss of faceless beings that lack true understanding of their own individual being. The ‘they’ disburdens the self of the responsibilities involved in acknowledging its true possibilities. The understanding of our own being becomes nebulous and vague because the ability to see the self as a creature of possibilities and intentions is taken away and replaced by that which presents itself immediately to our intentions. While never escaping the self, the understanding of our being becomes limited and our intentions go no further than the territory deemed to be within our comfort zone. The ‘they’ alleviates the self from the anxious authentic mode of being: a view which looks at the much larger picture; one which is constantly examining the self as if from the aerial perspective: mapping out possible routes and problems ahead of time, yet all the while keeping at forefront the understanding of the inevitable and impending end-of-being which will occur in death. Inauthentic being makes us near sighted, allowing only the finite, temporal, and immediate to truly penetrate our understanding.
Marion’s analysis of the experience with the idol, one which clouds our true understanding of the self, is similar in many ways to Heidegger’s conception of inauthentic being. The idol captures the intentions of the viewer completely, allowing no transparency whatsoever. The gaze rests upon the idol alone, entirely saturating the field of vision. Marion states that the idol is an invisible mirror of a visible reality; the idol is determined entirely by the gaze. The gaze, creating an invisible mirror upon that which becomes the idolized, is deceptively reflected back towards the viewer. In actuality, the idol becomes venerated solely because the aim of the gaze is directed at it and reflected from it. The idol takes from the viewer the ability to observe or acknowledge the actual relationship of intentions. The viewer is unable to recognize that what is apparent goes no further than revealing a reflection of the gaze itself. If one were, through authentic being, able to examine the actual relationship taking place, the viewer would realize that the object of its intentions has no actual attributes other than those held within the gaze originally. The authentic Dasein would understand that the gaze and idol are, in fact, the same and that which has been venerated as divine is merely a deception of the self. Yet, because the mirror is invisible, inauthenticity remains inescapable until our gaze given the ability to transpierce the idol and look further.
