Page History

...

But now, for reasons that need not be gone into here, philosophy as the one and only phenomenological, or ontological science, necessarily includes a "fundamental ontology" in the form of an "existententialist analysis." And it is precisely this analysis that theology most directly presupposes. Just as there is "a language in which existence naively expresses itself," so there is also "a science that talks about existence without objectifying it into being within the world" (NTM: 101). The task of such a science is "to develop the understanding of existence that is given with existence itself in an appropriate conceptuality. Therefore, it does not ask the question about the meaning of existence as an existential question but rather inquires by way of existentialist analysis what existence means in general, in the knowledge that the existential question can be answered only by existing itself" (107). This means that philosophy does not "prescribe to us: so should you exist!" It "says to us only: you should exist! Or if that is already to say too much, philosophy shows us what existing means. It shows us that human being, in contradistinction from all other being, means precisely to exist – -- to be a being that is given over to itself and has to take responsibility for itself. Philosophy thus shows us that human existence comes to its authenticity only by existing, and therefore is realized only ever anew in the concrete here and now. It does not propose, however, to create an existential understanding of the here and now by existentialist analysis; it does not take this away from us but rather leaves it precisely to us" (107 f.).

...

In any event, it is clear from the above passages that, while philosophy, including existentialist analysis, is, in Bultmann's understanding, a phenomenological, or ontological, science, it nevertheless functions, or can be made to function, at least indirectly, existentially – -- not in that it calls us to a specific self-understanding, but in that it calls us to understand ourselves authentically. Precisely in clarifying what existing means, existentialist analysis at least indirectly calls us to exist, and that means, to exist authentically, in freedom from the past and for the future. The difficulty, however, is that philosophy as such is as powerless to give us such an authentic existence as it is to give us any existence whatsoever. In this respect, philosophy, in Bultrnann's view, can never do more than, on Luther's analysis, the law can do: it can confront us with the demand to live authentically, but only so as to condemn us. It cannot give us the freedom from ourselves without which we are unable to obey the law's demand.

...

In sum: Bultmann's understanding is, in effect, a point-by-point restatement of Luther's, with the one important difference that he is much more self-conscious about the way in which – -- and the reasons why – -- theology, perforce, depends upon philosophy. With this difference, he, too,
holds that philosophy at its best can clarify our authentic existence and call us to actualize it, thereby performing the proper function of the law. But he is no less clear than Luther that even the best philosophy cannot do any more than this, because the only human beings to whom it can issue its call are radically fallen human beings, and itself, simply as philosophy, is powerless to free them from their radical fallenness. Only the event of God's prevenient grace through Jesus Christ can give us the authentic existence that philosophy, in its way, also calls us to actualize.

...