Heidegger and Kabbalah

[Anonymous No.20620347]

>https://themarginaliareview.com/heidegger-and-kabbalah/
>Heidegger speaks about a (post)metaphysical, or meontological (the study of non-being) register, addressing the “last god who has come and gone” (by never coming in the first place, a futurity never realized nor realizable). Wolfson argues that Ein Sof serves a similar purpose. “The last god, we may infer from the kabbalistic depiction of Ein Sof, is the god that can never arrive except as a god that does not arrive, the end that can never stop ending, the future that is perpetually impending.” He makes a similar argument about the messianic in his book Open Secret on Habad messianism. The secret doctrine of the messiah is that there is no messiah. Messianism remains true the extent to which it never happens.
So Kabbalah is Neoplatonism but repurposed as an elaborate Jewish cope against their own prophecies, huh? And Heidegger's in on it too? That's really sad.

[Anonymous No.20620359]

>>20620347
Retarded interpretation of Heidegger's coming God.

[Anonymous No.20620371]

>>20620347
>So Kabbalah is Neoplatonism but repurposed as an elaborate Jewish cope against their own prophecies, huh?
Yeah basically. It has some cool features though, the tree of life is a really interesting way to consider the plurality of Gods energies as compared to his Oneness of Essence.

[Anonymous No.20620376]

>>20620371
What's better than Kabbalah? Just go straight to Plotinus and Proclus? Add Kabbalah as a supplemental? Read the Bible?

[Anonymous No.20620409]

>>20620376
The more you read the more you'll find they're all systems to try and reconcile the One and the Many which is the fundamental problem of Metaphysics. All plurality derives from a unity but all unity is made up of a plurality. In the Neoplatonic scheme the issue is addressed with the absolutely transcendental One which is the source of everything else and absolutely simple in its essence, giving rise to the Nous through its own self contemplation and thus emanating the Forms as an infinite set of finite ways to consider the infinite One in a finite mode.

The answer is whichever system you find most appealing. I don't think there's any real obviously correct answer, they're all just ways of considering the relationship between the absolute and creation. I think Neoplatonism proposes the most simple and rationally defensible answer with as few metaphysical entities as possible.

There's also the issue that the various schemas are not necessarily mutually incompatible. The Tree of Life for example shares a lot in common with Proclus' scheme of many triads of Life, Being and Soul

Ultimately you're trying to explain the ineffable. There are an infinite number of angles to approach the infinite and they all have some level of truth to them.

[Anonymous No.20620475]

>>20620409
how has this changed your life?

[Anonymous No.20620665]

>>20620475
I think it's made me more open minded towards the wisdom of the past, and I've stopped thinking of the ancients as ignorant bumpkins because they lacked the modern scientific technique. More importantly it's changed my view of the world from a mechanistic view of things being reduced to the actions of their smallest parts to seeing the world as an organic unity, which I think is a much healthier viewpoint. The cosmos itself is an evolving organism, not merely a mess of unorganized particles flung from the big bang.