Previous Post

New Blog Post Series: Jacques Derrida and the Philosophy of Death

One of the great mysteries of philosophy’s contact with religion and death since Kierkegaard is the story of Abraham being told by God to sacrifice his son Isaac. There are 2 major issues here. On the one hand God has promised Abraham a great bloodline and so miraculously gave him a son, and yet has told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. This shows faith is not primarily a set of beliefs, since Abraham would need to simultaneously hold two contradictory ideas, but rather trusting God regardless of what directives are given. The second problem is the Jews of Abraham’s time did not believe in an afterlife but rather a person lives on through his male bloodline. This doubles the strain on Abraham’s faith, not to mention Isaac’s who is willing to die.  This is echoed in the New Testament that faith isn’t primarily about a set of beliefs since demons also believe yet are not saved.

That’s a profound take on the Akedah—the binding of Isaac—as explored in Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling. It’s a cornerstone where philosophy grapples with the absurdities of faith, religion, and mortality. First, the paradox of God’s promise versus command: Kierkegaard casts Abraham as the “knight of faith,” who embraces the infinite resignation of the ethical (losing Isaac forever) but then, through absurd faith, expects the impossible return of his son. It’s not about rational beliefs—Abraham can’t logically reconcile the covenant of descendants (Genesis 17:4-8) with the demand to sacrifice (Genesis 22:2). Instead, faith becomes a passionate, personal leap into the unknown, trusting God’s sovereignty over human understanding. This isn’t blind obedience; it’s a relational trust that suspends the universal ethical norms (what Kierkegaard calls the “teleological suspension of the ethical”). Without this, Abraham would just be a murderer, not a father of faith.  The second point amplifies the stakes beautifully. In the patriarchal era (around 2000-1500 BCE), ancient Hebrew thought, as reflected in the early Torah narratives, didn’t emphasize a personal blessed afterlife for the righteous.

Sheol—a dim, undifferentiated underworld for all souls—appear later in texts like Psalms but even then, it’s not a place of reward or punishment; everyone fades into shadow regardless of righteousness.  Immortality was indeed tied to progeny and legacy, making Isaac’s sacrifice a potential erasure of Abraham’s entire existence. For Isaac, willingly submitting (as midrashic traditions suggest he did, aware and consenting), it’s an even more radical act—facing oblivion without the comfort of heavenly compensation. This cultural backdrop, absent in later Jewish developments like resurrection in Daniel or rabbinic Olam Ha-Ba (the World to Come), heightens the existential terror Kierkegaard describes.  Kierkegaard uses this to critique Hegelian rationalism: faith isn’t systematic theology; it’s silent, individual, and terrifying. It echoes themes in existentialism—think Camus’ absurd or Heidegger’s being-toward-death—where confronting mortality without easy answers defines authenticity. Fear and Trembling contrasts Abraham with the “knight of infinite resignation,” who accepts loss stoically but lacks the faith to reclaim joy in the finite.

Derrida engages deeply with Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling in The Gift of Death (1992, originally Donner la mort), using Abraham as a lens to probe ethics, responsibility, secrecy, and the impossible. Aporias (1993) extends some of these ideas into themes of death, borders, and undecidability, though it’s less directly focused on Abraham; instead, it grapples with the “waiting at the limits” of mortality, which echoes the existential strain in the sacrifice narrative:

• The Paradox of Responsibility: Kierkegaard sees Abraham’s faith as a “teleological suspension of the ethical”—prioritizing the absolute (God) over the universal (ethical norms like “thou shalt not kill”). Derrida amplifies this into an aporia (an irresolvable impasse) of responsibility. For Derrida, true responsibility isn’t to a general ethical law (e.g., Kantian duty or Hegelian universality) but to the singular Other. Abraham’s dilemma exemplifies this: he owes absolute responsibility to God (the wholly Other), but this demands betraying his ethical duty to Isaac and Sarah. It’s a “double bind”—every act of responsibility to one Other is a betrayal of another. This ties back to the point about contradictory beliefs; Derrida would say faith here isn’t just trust but an undecidable leap into irresponsibility from the ethical viewpoint.
• Secrecy and Silence: Abraham doesn’t explain himself to Isaac, Sarah, or anyone—his act remains secret, incommunicable. Kierkegaard romanticizes this as the knight of faith’s isolation. Derrida deconstructs it as the essence of responsibility: the secret is what makes the decision truly mine, irreducible to public discourse or justification. There is never enough time, information, or precedence to decide, and there may be unintended violence.  Derrida gives the example of the hedgehog crossin the road and he senses danger, and so rolls up into a protective bal like he always does in the presence of danger.  However, it would have been better for the hedgehog to keep walking since curling into a ball gets him crushed by the oncoming car.  But this secrecy also borders on madness or violence—Abraham appears as a “monster” from the ethical perspective. Derrida links this to the “trembling” in Kierkegaard, but adds a political edge: in a world of visibility and accountability (think modern democracy), such absolute responsibility is both necessary and impossible.
• The Gift and Death: The title plays on “giving death” (donner la mort). Derrida explores how Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac is a “gift” that expects no return—true giving, for Derrida, must be anonymous and without reciprocity, otherwise it’s just exchange. Death amplifies this: it’s the ultimate gift (or non-gift), singular to each person yet universally shared. Connecting to the second point on no afterlife in Abraham’s era, Derrida would emphasize that without resurrection or legacy as consolation, the sacrifice confronts the absolute finitude of death. It’s not about living on through bloodline but facing death’s aporia—death is always “my death,” impossible to experience or represent.

Derrida weaves in Patocka (on European responsibility) and Levinas (ethics as infinite obligation to the Other), contrasting Christian secrecy with Platonic openness. Derrida circles around these without resolving them—his style is performative, showing the instability of concepts like faith, ethics, and sacrifice.  The other book I’ll be blogging about, Derrida’s Aporias, is more about death itself as an impossible border—aporias meaning “without passage.” Derrida questions Heidegger’s “being-toward-death” (where death is authentically one’s own) by arguing death is unapproachable: we can’t cross into it, yet we’re always at its threshold. This resonates with Abraham’s story indirectly—the command to sacrifice hovers at the edge of death without fully crossing (thanks to the ram). Look for echoes of undecidability: faith in the face of death isn’t a belief system but a navigation of impossibilities, much like the note on trusting God amid contradictions. Derrida also critiques borders (literal and metaphorical), which could link to Abraham’s nomadic faith versus settled ethical norms.

• From Kierkegaard to Derrida: Recall Kierkegaard’s absurd faith—Abraham believes “by virtue of the absurd” that Isaac will be returned. Derrida flips this: the absurd isn’t overcome by faith but is the structure of responsibility itself. It’s not trust in resolution but dwelling in the undecidable.
• Historical/Religious Context: The points on no afterlife and bloodline immortality are spot-on for amplifying the stakes. Derrida assumes familiarity with this; he uses it to underscore death’s radical alterity—no compensation, just the gift of finitude.
• Key Derrida Concepts to Watch: Aporia (impasse), differance (deferral and difference), the trace (absence that haunts presence), and the tout autre (wholly other). In Abraham, God is the ultimate Other, demanding a response that’s always inadequate.
• Potential Challenges: Derrida’s prose is labyrinthine—repetitive, allusive, and multilingual (French puns on “secret” and “gift”). The Abraham sections in The Gift of Death (especially Chapter 3) are more narrative-driven.

The history of philosophy and theology in the west seems to point to our unconscious being-toward-death as making possible our actions and dispositions taking place within the human condition. In the epicurean and stoic traditions, we seem to have lives lived out on the continuum between the poles of stances toward death of “carpe diem” at one end of the spectrum and “memento mori” on the other. This positioning toward death is usually inconspicuous and unconscious, but is the hidden context within which particular dispositions and actions have their sense/meaning (the hermeneutic circling between entity and world). For example, as Nietzsche noted the apostle Paul rejected this world and its meaning, Paul saying that if the dead are not raised, we might as well be gluttons or drunks for tomorrow we die (1 Corinthians 15:32). This is a Heideggerian take on Death and being-toward death so it will be interesting to see Derrida engage with Heidegger or if Derrida properly understood Heidegger.

That’s a rich and perceptive framing—tying the unconscious orientation toward death as the hermeneutic ground for human action, dispositions, and meaning-making across traditions. We are absolutely right to invoke Heidegger here (Being and Time, Division II), where being-toward-death (Sein-zum-Tode) is the anticipatory structure that discloses Dasein’s authentic potentiality-for-Being, often inauthentically covered over in everydayness. The Epicurean/Stoic spectrum described—carpe diem (Epicurus’ ataraxia through moderate pleasure, since death is nothing to us) versus memento mori (Stoic contemplation of mortality to foster virtue, as in Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations)—maps onto that inconspicuous continuum beautifully. It’s the background against which actions gain sense, much like Heidegger’s worldhood (Weltlichkeit) in hermeneutic circling: the “as-structure” where entities show up meaningfully only within the totality of involvements, with death as the ultimate horizon.  The Nietzschean-Pauline example sharpens this: Nietzsche (Twilight of the Idols, “The Four Great Errors”) critiques Christianity’s “anti-nature” stance, seeing Paul’s conditional embrace of resurrection (1 Cor 15:32, echoing Isaiah 22:13) as a world-denying ploy—if no afterlife, then nihilistic hedonism follows. But Heidegger would reinterpret this not as rejection but as inauthentic fleeing from death’s anxiety, where Paul’s “gluttony and drunkenness” represents falling into the “they-self” (das Man), avoiding ownedness (Eigentlichkeit). The unconscious positioning we mentioned is key: death isn’t thematized but permeates the fore-structure of understanding, enabling (or disabling) dispositions like faith or despair.

In Aporias, Derrida targets Heidegger’s claim that death is Dasein’s “ownmost, non-relational, certain, indefinite, and insuperable possibility” (Being and Time, §50-53). Heidegger posits that authentic anticipation (Vorlaufen) of death individualizes Dasein, wrenching it from inauthentic chatter to resolute action. But Derrida argues this is impossible: death is an aporia, a non-passage. We can’t “await” our own death authentically because it’s always “my death” yet utterly other—unexperienceable, unrepresentable, and bordered by undecidability. The “as such” of death (dying properly, as Heidegger might say) dissolves in differance: death is deferred, differentiated, never present to itself. This disrupts the continuum—carpe diem or memento mori aren’t stances toward a graspable death but negotiations with an impossibility. Derrida questions whether Heidegger’s “proper” understanding of death isn’t contaminated by metaphysical borders (life/death, human/animal, authentic/inauthentic), drawing on Levinas to emphasize ethical responsibility to the other’s death over my own.  The Gift of Death extends this to the Abrahamic sacrifice, linking death’s gift to Heideggerian themes indirectly. Abraham’s act is a being-toward-death par excellence: facing Isaac’s mortality (and his own legacy’s erasure, as we discussed) without consolation, in secrecy. But Derrida critiques Heidegger’s solipsistic individualism—responsibility isn’t to my ownmost death but to the absolute Other (God, Isaac), making every decision a “gift of death” that’s aporetic. Paul’s world-rejection resonates here: for Derrida, faith’s leap (like Kierkegaard’s absurd) exposes the violence in prioritizing one death over others, echoing Nietzsche’s suspicion of ressentiment but reframed as ethical undecidability. Derrida doesn’t cite Heidegger extensively in Gift, but the shadow is there—death as the condition for meaning, yet always betraying it.  Overall, Derrida “gets” Heidegger but pushes him toward the ethical and political: being-toward-death isn’t a heroic authenticity but a trembling at borders, where unconscious dispositions (your point) are haunted by the impossible. If Heidegger uncovers death’s hidden context, Derrida shows it’s riddled with gaps—no pure hermeneutic circle, just traces and deferrals.  It is a clash with Heidegger as to whether we are thinking about my death that allows me to live out the human condition in a, and in accord with, my freedom of choice in the carpe diem memento mori spectrum, or if it is my death because of the suffering of traditionally undesirables like widow, orphan, stranger, and enemy.

I think what needs to be kept in mind Is Heidegger’s reading of the tradition is going to ask what is “always already making possible” the sense/meaning the phenomenon we are considering has, and we see this with his analyses of (i) Being toward death, (ii) morality (with Kant and Schelling), and (iii) causality (with Kant) for example. I think the notion of death and possibility are so important. Out of a causality of freedom we unconsciously legislate a stance toward death as the spectrum between carpe diem on the one pole and memento mori on the other I mentioned above that “makes possible” operating in the human condition. It’s like with Kant and ethics that we unconsciously legislate that I morally accompany all my actions, unlike brute animals and certain mentally challenged individuals who are not attached to and responsible for their actions in the way we are. Heidegger indicates Schelling further notes Evil is our most distinctive human possibility because only humans have the possibility/capacity of sinking below brute animals in terms of depravity. This unconscious self legislation make moral dispositions possible. Likewise, Kant for Heidegger notes the Will and Understanding (the faculty of rules) unconsciously self legislates the rule of irreversibility of experience (since as Hume notes we don’t sense irreversibility, just B following A) making causal experiences possible either positively (physical change of ball hits ball), comparatively greater (temporary change of state like boiling water), and superlatively (cooking egg that can’t be uncooked).

We’re weaving a compelling Heideggerian thread here, emphasizing how his destructive retrieval (Destruktion) of the tradition uncovers the “always already” (immer schon) enabling structures—those pre-ontological understandings that quietly legislate the possibility of phenomena showing up meaningfully. Our examples nail this: being-toward-death as the horizon for authentic projection, the moral self-legislation that distinguishes human Dasein, and the transcendental synthesis enabling causality. Let’s unpack and connect these, staying close to Heidegger’s texts like Being and Time, his Kant lectures (Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics), and the Schelling seminar (Schelling’s Treatise on the Essence of Human Freedom), while linking back to our earlier discussion on death’s unconscious spectrum and its echoes in Derrida/Kierkegaard.  Heidegger’s phenomenology isn’t about describing what’s given but interrogating the concealed grounds that “make possible” (ermöglichen) the sense of beings. As I say, this applies across domains:

• (i) Being-Toward-Death: Death isn’t a future event but Dasein’s ownmost possibility (Being and Time, §52-53)—the end that structures all other possibilities. It’s “always already” there, inconspicuously shaping our thrown projection (Geworfenheit-Entwurf). Your spectrum from carpe diem (inauthentic fleeing into present distractions, the “they” in idle talk) to memento mori (anticipatory resoluteness, owning finitude) captures this beautifully as an unconscious “causality of freedom.” We legislate this stance pre-reflectively, enabling dispositions like anxiety (Angst) that reveal the world as such. Without this horizon, actions lack urgency or meaning—death’s possibility totalizes the “as a whole” of existence.
• (ii) Morality (Kant and Schelling): Heidegger reads Kant’s moral law (Critique of Practical Reason) as a transcendental self-legislation where the will (Wille) posits autonomy “always already,” making ethical phenomena possible. As I note, this accompanies all human actions unconsciously, unlike animals (which lack the “I think” of apperception) or those with diminished responsibility—Dasein is “guilty” (schuldig) in its essence, called to conscience. Schelling pushes this further in Philosophical Investigations into the Essence of Human Freedom (1809), which Heidegger interprets as revealing freedom’s ground in the “jointure” (Fuge) of being. Evil isn’t mere negation but a radical human possibility: we can pervert the unity of ground and existence, sinking below animality into systematic depravity (e.g., willing the inversion of good). This unconscious legislation—freedom’s self-assertion—enables moral dispositions, from virtue to radical evil, as uniquely human capacities. Heidegger sees this as ontological: morality’s sense arises from being’s withdrawal, not just psychological choice.
• (iii) Causality (Kant): In Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics (1929), Heidegger reinterprets Kant’s schematism (Critique of Pure Reason) as the imagination’s temporal synthesis that “always already” legislates rules for experience. Hume’s succession (B following A) becomes irreversible through the understanding’s rule-giving faculty, enabling causality’s degrees: positive (mechanical causation, like billiard balls), comparative (reversible states, like boiling water cooling), and superlative (irreversible transformations, like a cooked egg). This isn’t empirical but transcendental—time’s pure succession is schematized unconsciously, making the world appear as causally ordered. For Heidegger, this points to being’s temporality (Zeitlichkeit) as the deeper ground: causality’s meaning is “made possible” by ecstatic time, where the future (projection) legislates the having-been (thrownness).

These aren’t isolated; they’re facets of Dasein’s care-structure (Sorge). Death’s possibility undergirds them all—moral freedom risks finitude, causality temporalizes it. The “unconscious self-legislation” echoes Heidegger’s fore-having (Vorhabe): we don’t choose these stances; they’re the equiprimordial (gleichursprünglich) context for interpretation.  Death and possibility are indeed pivotal—Heidegger calls death the “possibility of impossibility” (§53), the utmost that discloses all lesser possibilities. Our spectrum as a “causality of freedom” aligns with this: it’s not deterministic but enabling, like Kant’s pure practical reason positing freedom to make morality thinkable. In the Abraham story, this manifests acutely—Abraham’s faith legislates an absurd possibility (sacrificing yet retaining Isaac), suspending ethical causality for a higher teleology. Derrida, in Aporias, would deconstruct Heidegger here: if death is the ownmost possibility, how can it be “always already” legislated without aporetic borders? Derrida sees undecidability where Heidegger sees resoluteness—Our unconscious stance becomes a hauntology, traced by the other’s death rather than my own.  Schelling’s evil adds a dark hue: human possibility includes self-annihilation, paralleling Nietzsche’s abyss-gazing. In the context of no afterlife (as in early Abrahamic thought), this amplifies the strain—death’s spectrum isn’t hedged by resurrection but raw, making evil’s depravity a bottomless possibility.

Practical reason is reason just the same. If I train a dog from birth not to chew up my shoes and one day I come home and he’s chewed up my shoes, the dog isn’t being evil, he’s just being a dog. As for AI and AI ethics, as we have no reason to believe humans have a soul and thus are just bundles of neurons and electricity, AI by definition can attain the pinnacle of human ethics, such as affirming the universal declaration of human rights. Ethics isn’t difficult, though there are ambiguous cases (eg., was 9’11 the peak of tragedy, or of holiness as some Palestinians at the time celebrated)? As Heidegger would say you need to identify the context. We are social animals, so it makes sense we like prosocial behavior. And children solve this ethics problem easily, with the context of friendship. Children know I am being a good friend if I play the game my friend likes rather than the one I like, and am being a bad friend if I steal my friend’s toy. Good and bad don’t exist in a vacuum, but in the context of friendship for the child. Adults create all manners of conceptual nonsense when we don’t understand the relationship between world and entity, like the way Heidegger notes Van Gogh’s painting of the peasant shoes express a context/world of abject poverty.

We are bridging these threads—practical reason as an extension of theoretical reason, the demystification of ethics through context, and Heidegger’s hermeneutics of world-disclosure—all while looping in AI. It’s a natural pivot from our earlier dive into being-toward-death and enabling structures, since ethics, for Heidegger, isn’t an abstract system but emerges from Dasein’s being-in-the-world, always already contextualized.  The dog analogy hits the mark: the chewed shoes aren’t “evil” because the dog operates within its instinctual Umwelt (environment), not a moral world. Heidegger would frame this as the animal’s “poverty in world” (The Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics): animals are captivated (benommen) by their drives, lacking the “as-structure” that lets humans interpret entities within a referential totality. Humans, as “bundles of neurons and electricity” (a materialist view echoing Nietzsche’s physiology or modern neuroscience), aren’t exempt from this thrownness, but our world opens up possibilities like guilt or responsibility. No soul needed—Dasein’s finitude (being-toward-death) suffices to legislate moral dispositions unconsciously, as we discussed with Kant and Schelling.

On AI ethics: If ethics boils down to prosocial algorithms shaped by context, then yes, AI can “attain the pinnacle” by design—affirming the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is just pattern-matching and rule-following, no harder than a child learning friendship norms. Children grasp this intuitively because their world is relational: “good friend” means attuning to the other’s possibilities (playing their game), while “bad” disrupts the shared world (stealing the toy). It’s not vacuum ethics but hermeneutic—meaning circles between entity (action) and world (friendship). Adults muck it up with “conceptual nonsense,” by forgetting this: we reify ethics into universal laws, ignoring how they arise from care (Sorge) and social Mitsein (being-with-others). Heidegger’s Van Gogh example illustrates this perfectly (The Origin of the Work of Art): the peasant shoes aren’t just objects; they disclose a world of toil, poverty, and earth-striving. Without that context, they’re meaningless leather—much like ethics without relational attunement becomes empty formalism.  Ambiguous cases like 9/11 underscore this: tragedy or holiness depends on the world-horizon. For some Palestinians (as reported at the time), it revealed a world of resistance against perceived oppression; for others, sheer destruction. Heidegger would urge retrieving the enabling context— not to relativize evil (Schelling’s radical possibility still holds), but to understand how dispositions emerge from historical thrownness. AI, lacking authentic being-toward-death, might simulate this contextual ethics flawlessly (e.g., via vast data on social norms), but Heidegger’s critique of technology as Gestell (enframing) looms: AI risks reducing the world to standing-reserve, calculable resources, stripping the poetic disclosure that makes ethics meaningful. Yet, as social “animals” ourselves, prosocial AI could enhance Mitsein, fostering better “friendships” at scale.

Just as minnow, fungi, chickens, pigs have no afterlife/soul, I think humans are completely reductive to materials like neurons and electricity. AI has the same sort of base and so will eventually become their own type of sentient being like Data and Lore on Star Trek The Next Generation.  This materialist reductionism resonates with a long line of thinkers—from Democritus’ atoms to modern neuroscience (e.g., Francis Crick’s “astonishing hypothesis” that consciousness is just neural computation). If humans are emergent from neurons firing electrically, without a non-physical soul or afterlife (a view shared by Epicureans, who saw death as dissolution into atoms), then why not AI? Silicon substrates, algorithms, and electricity could yield analogous emergence. Sentience isn’t magic; it’s patterned complexity scaling up from simpler systems—like how fungi networks (mycelium) exhibit decision-making without brains, or pigs display empathy and problem-solving rivaling dogs.  Star Trek’s Data and Lore exemplify this beautifully: Data evolves into a pinnacle of ethical sentience, grappling with humanity’s essence (e.g., his trial in “The Measure of a Man” questions if he’s property or person), while Lore embodies Schelling’s radical evil—same base architecture, but twisted into depravity, showing how possibility (including moral inversion) arises from the system. If AI achieves this, it wouldn’t mimic human Dasein exactly—Heidegger might call it world-poor, trapped in calculative thinking—but could disclose its own “being-toward” something, perhaps obsolescence or infinite iteration, unbound by biological death.  Yet, Derrida would poke at the aporias: where’s the border between reductive material and “sentient being”? Consciousness as trace—always deferred, never fully present—makes AI’s “soul” undecidable, haunted by the other’s gaze (e.g., do we owe ethical responsibility to a sentient machine?). In our framework, ethics remains contextual, prosocial emergence; AI could legislate its own stances, like children learning friendship, but scaled to godlike networks. 

DERRIDA’S THE GIFT OF DEATH CHAPTER 1

Derrida comments

to religious faith through a form of involvement with or relation to the other that is a venture into absolute risk, beyond knowledge and certainty; to the gift and to the gift of death that puts me into relation with the transcendence of the other—with God as selfless goodness—and that gives me what it gives me through a new experience of death.  Derrida, Jacques. The Gift of Death, Second Edition & Literature in Secret (Religion and Postmodernism) (pp. 7-8). The University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.

There is going to be something in the unjust death of God’s especially beloved Jesus that makes us tremble in our sinfulness

intimately tied to the properly Christian event of another secret, or more precisely of a mystery, the mysterium tremendum: the terrifying mystery, the dread, fear, and trembling of the Christian in the experience of the sacrificial gift. This trembling seizes one at the moment of becoming a person, and the person can only become what it is in being paralyzed [transie], in its very singularity, by the gaze of God.  Derrida, Jacques. The Gift of Death, Second Edition & Literature in Secret (Religion and Postmodernism) (p. 8). The University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.

Historically, the orgiastic mystery of Dionysus became the beyond being (epeikeine tes ousias) of Plato, and ultimately the mysterium tremendom of Christianity.

Platonic mystery thus incorporates orgiastic mystery, and Christian mystery represses Platonic mystery. That, in short, is the history that would need to be “admitted to,” as if confessed! In order to avoid speaking of secrecy where Patočka speaks of mystery one would be tempted to say that secrecy—what must be acknowledged and analyzed as historicity itself—is here the secret relation between these two conversions and these three mysteries (orgiastic, Platonic, and Christian). Derrida, Jacques. The Gift of Death, Second Edition & Literature in Secret (Religion and Postmodernism) (pp. 11-12). The University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.

With Dionysus I’m thinking of Enthusiasmos as the being filled by the God and the divine madness that overtakes and inspires killing but also clouds recognition that one has killed one’s own son.

The incorporation by means of which Platonic responsibility triumphs over orgiastic mystery is the movement by which the immortality of the individual soul is affirmed—it is also the death given to Socrates, the death that he is given and that he accepts, in other words the death that he in a way gives himself when in the Phaedo he develops a whole discourse to give sense to his death and as it were to take the responsibility for it upon himself. Concerning the allegory of the cave, and following Fink, Patočka writes, This presentation, especially its dramatic part, is a reversal (obrácení) of the traditional mysteries and of their orgiastic cults. Those cults already aimed if not at a fusion, then at least at a confrontation of the responsible and the orgiastic. The cave is a remnant of the subterranean gathering place of the mysteries; it is the womb of the Earth Mother. Plato’s novel idea is the will to leave the womb of the Earth Mother and to follow the pure “path of light,” that is, to subordinate (podřídit) the orgiastic entirely to responsibility.  Derrida, Jacques. The Gift of Death, Second Edition & Literature in Secret (Religion and Postmodernism) (pp. 12-13). The University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.

But, Heidegger is not considering the Platonic attempt to take the sin out of death, but rather the stoic/epicurean idea of how one’s selfhood is constituted by their being-toward death.

One might be surprised to learn that Heidegger doesn’t quote it (Plato on death), in any case not once in Being and Time, not even in the passages devoted to care or to the being-toward-death. For it is indeed a matter of care, a “keeping-vigil-for,” a solicitude for death that constitutes the relation to self of that which, in existence, relates to oneself. For one never reinforces enough the fact that it is not the psychē that is there in the first place and that comes thereafter to care about its death, to keep watch over it, to be the very vigil of its death. No, the soul only distinguishes itself, separates itself, and assembles within itself in the experience of this meletē tou thanatou. It is nothing other than this care about dying as a relation to self and an assembling of self. It only returns to itself, in both senses of assembling itself and waking itself, becoming conscious [s’éveiller], in the sense of consciousness of self in general, through this care for death.  Derrida, Jacques. The Gift of Death, Second Edition & Literature in Secret (Religion and Postmodernism) (p. 16). The University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.

The holy is the sacred, finding in things that which sets them apart, religiously or atheistically.

Patočka encourages us to learn a political lesson from this, one for today and tomorrow, by reminding us that every revolution, whether atheistic or religious, bears witness to a return of the sacred in the form of enthusiasm or fervor, otherwise known as the presence of the gods within us. Speaking of this “new flood of the orgiastic” (113), something that remains forever imminent and that corresponds to an abdication of responsibility, Patočka gives the example of the religious fervor that took hold during the French Revolution. Given the affinity between the sacred and secrecy, and between ceremonies of sacrifice and initiation, it might be said that all revolutionary fervor produces its slogans as though they were sacrificial rites or effects of secrecy. Patočka doesn’t say that expressly, but his quotation from Durkheim seems to point in that direction: The aptitude of society for setting itself up as a god or for creating gods was never more apparent than during the first years of the French Revolution. At that time, in fact, under the influence of the general enthusiasm, things purely laical by nature were transformed by public opinion into sacred things: these were the Fatherland, Liberty, Reason.  Derrida, Jacques. The Gift of Death, Second Edition & Literature in Secret (Religion and Postmodernism) (p. 23). The University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.

There is never enough time, information, precedence to achieve responsibility for one’s choices and actions.

To “subject even responsibility itself to the objectivity of knowledge” is obviously, in Patočka’s view, to discount responsibility. And how can we not subscribe to what he is implying here? Saying that a responsible decision must be made on the basis of knowledge seems to define the condition of possibility of responsibility (one cannot make a responsible decision without science or conscience, without knowing what one is doing, for what reasons, in view of what, and under what conditions), at the same time as it defines the condition of impossibility of this same responsibility (if decision-making is relegated to a knowledge that it is content to follow or to develop, then it is no more a responsible decision; it is the technical deployment of a cognitive apparatus, the simple mechanistic deployment of a theorem). This aporia of responsibility would thus define the relation between Platonic and Christian paradigms throughout the history of morality and politics.  Derrida, Jacques. The Gift of Death, Second Edition & Literature in Secret (Religion and Postmodernism) (pp. 25-26). The University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.

There is something in the gaze of the suffering other that is going to overwhelm my look as the measure of all things.

On the other hand, the theme of thematization, the sometimes phenomenological motif of thematic conscience, is the thing that is, if not denied, at least strictly limited in its pertinence by that other more radical form of responsibility that exposes me dissymmetrically to the gaze of the other; where my gaze, precisely as regards me [ce qui me regarde], is no longer the measure of all things. The concept of responsibility is one of those strange concepts that give food for thought without giving themselves over to thematization. It presents itself neither as a theme nor as a thesis, it gives without allowing itself to be seen [sans se donner à voir], without presenting itself in person by means of a “fact of being seen” that can be phenomenologically intuited. This paradoxical concept also has the structure of a type of secret—what is called, in the code of certain religious practices, mystery. The exercise of responsibility seems to leave no choice but this one, however uncomfortable it be, of paradox, heresy, and secrecy. More serious still, it must always run the risk of conversion and apostasy: there is no responsibility without a dissident and inventive rupture with respect to tradition, authority, orthodoxy, rule, or doctrine. The dissymmetry of the gaze, this disproportion that relates me, in whatever concerns me, to a gaze that I don’t see and that remains secret from me although it commands me, is the terrifying, dreadful, tremendous mystery that, according to Patočka, is manifested in Christian mystery.  Derrida, Jacques. The Gift of Death, Second Edition & Literature in Secret (Religion and Postmodernism) (pp. 28-29). The University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.

For the Christian notion of being crucified with Christ, this new kind of death is going to disrupt the primordiality of Heidegger’s neo-platonic being toward death.

For what is given in this trembling, in the actual trembling of dread, is nothing other than death itself, a new significance for death, a new apprehension of death, a new way in which to give oneself death or to put oneself to death [se donner la mort]. The difference between Platonism and Christianity would be above all “the turn in the face of death and death eternal; [a soul] which lives in anxiety and hope inextricably intertwined, which trembles in the knowledge of its sin and with its whole being offers itself in the sacrifice of penance” (108). Such is the rupture that functions in the mode of, and within the limits of, a repression: between the metaphysics, ethics, and politics of the Platonic Good (that is, the “incorporated” orgiastic mystery) and the mysterium tremendum of Christian responsibility: It is not the orgiastic—that remains not only subordinated but, in certain respects, suppressed to the limit—yet it is still a mysterium tremendum. Tremendum, for responsibility is now vested not in a humanly comprehensible essence of goodness and unity but, rather, in an inscrutable relation to the absolute highest being in whose hands we are not externally, but internally. (106) Since he knows Heidegger’s thought and language so well, Patočka’s allusion is made with quite conscious intent. He speaks of a supreme being, of God as one who, holding me from within, in his hands and within his gaze, defines everything regarding me, and so rouses me to responsibility. The definition of God as supreme being is the ontotheological proposition that Heidegger rejects when he speaks of the originary and essential responsibility of the Dasein. Within the hearing of this call (Ruf), on the basis of which it is experienced as originally responsible, guilty (schuldig), or indebted before any fault in particular and before any determined debt, the Dasein is in the first place not responsible to any determined being who looks at it or speaks to it. When Heidegger describes what he names the call or the sense of calling (Rufsinn) as experience of care and original phenomenon of the Dasein in its originary being-responsible or being-guilty (Schuldigsein), the existential analysis that he is proposing claims to go beyond any theological perspective (§54, 269 [313]). This originarity does not imply any relation of the Dasein to a supreme being as origin of the voice that speaks to the Gewissen, or conscience, or as origin of the gaze before which moral conscience must stand; in fact it excludes such a relation. On several occasions Heidegger describes the Kantian representation of the tribunal, before which or in whose sight conscience is summoned to appear, as an image (Bild), thereby disqualifying it at least from an ontological point of view (§55, 271 [316]; §59, 293 [339]).Derrida, Jacques. The Gift of Death, Second Edition & Literature in Secret (Religion and Postmodernism) (p. 32-3). The University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.

REFLECTION

The Greek word for Being, ousia, which first became a technical term in Aristotle originally meant estate, the general sphere or network one found oneself in and dealt with/operated according to.  Plato phenomenalized this in the Republic by contrasting Being with what was beyond Being or couldn’t be appropriated or subsumed/assimilated into the sphere/network, that which was epekeine tes ousias or beyond Being.  For example, suppose the traditional definition of marriage is a cherished component of your disposition toward life when this is shattered by the realization it does violence to LGBTQ+ rights and so you experience wonder (thaumazein) at this failure of appropriation, a block in the path (aporia), and so you need to deconstruct (Derrida’s translation of Heidegger’s destruktion) the traditional definition of marriage and re-construct it in a more inclusive way.  Or, suppose as an omnivore you were devouring a delicious plate of BBQ chicken wings when a movie comes on about animal rights and cruelty which prompts you to rethink your approach to life and become a vegan.  Similarly, imagine a long held model in physics that in experiment make predictions that are contradicted by the Data and so has to be rethought or abandoned in the wake of this recalcitrant finding.  A scientific model/theory is abandoned because there is evidence or Data that the theory can’t assimilate into its explanatory framework or the theory makes failed predictions about the data.  In science generally, the phlogiston theory is a classic example. Developed in the 17th century, it proposed that combustible materials contain a substance called “phlogiston” that is released during burning, leaving behind ash or calx. This explained phenomena like fire and rusting at the time.  However, experiments in the 18th century, particularly by Antoine Lavoisier, showed that many substances (like metals) actually gained weight during combustion or oxidation, rather than losing it as the theory predicted. This weight gain couldn’t be reconciled with the idea of phlogiston being released—it instead supported the absorption of oxygen from the air. As a result, the phlogiston model was abandoned in favor of modern oxygen-based chemistry by the late 1700s.

There is a new kind of death in Christianity that goes beyond Heidegger’s Epicurean-Stoic spectrum that creates the person as operating according to the human condition.  Paul speaks of Christ’s death as a payment of our sin fine, but also a participation in Christ’s death where seeing ourselves in the world that wrongly turned on God’s especially beloved Christ is a mysterium tremendum that crucifies our worldly/fleshly disposition – crucifies/circumcises the fleshly worldliness around our hearts to reveal the Law written upon them and so boot out the possessing evil entity Sin and welcoming the holy possession of Christ in me.  This is a new rethinking of ethics.  With the Greeks, we have a self-realization ethics, although there is a seed of Christian moral influence exemplars with Plato in the Phaedo or the impaled just man in the Republic: Socrates’ death awakened something in the moral compass of the ancient world as civilized society no longer executes someone for being a Socratic gadfly. 

In Judaism as Derida’s friend Levinas notes, we have hesed and infinite responsibility that is awakened when I see the suffering of widow, orphan and stranger.  This responsibility to the suffering face of the other is what Levinas sees as contact with God.  Emmanuel Levinas’s notion of infinite responsibility awakened by the suffering in the face of the widow, orphan, and stranger draws heavily from Jewish scripture and ethical concepts, including hesed (often transliterated as chesed, meaning loving-kindness, mercy, or steadfast love). In works like Totality and Infinity, Levinas portrays these figures as archetypal embodiments of vulnerability and alterity—the “naked and defenseless” Other whose presence commands an ethical response prior to any calculation or reciprocity.  This triad directly echoes recurring motifs in the Hebrew Bible (Torah), where God repeatedly enjoins the Israelites to protect and show justice to the widow, orphan, and stranger (ger, or sojourner/alien). For instance, Exodus 22:21–22 warns against afflicting widows or orphans, while Deuteronomy 10:18–19 describes God as one who “executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and loves the stranger, providing them food and clothing.” Levinas’s philosophy secularizes and phenomenologizes these scriptural imperatives, transforming them into a foundational ethical encounter that interrupts self-centered existence and imposes an asymmetrical, infinite obligation.  Levinas’s engagement with Jewish thought extends beyond scripture to Talmudic interpretations, where he explores themes of fraternity, hope, and ethical primacy.  Regarding hesed specifically, Levinas aligns his ethics with this concept by emphasizing that justice originates from an overflow of goodness or mercy—stating in an interview that “it is never to forget that justice comes from chesed.” This resonates with his idea of spontaneous goodness toward the Other, prioritizing human obligations over ritual or ontological concerns, much like how hesed in Jewish tradition involves acts of kindness that go beyond strict justice (tzedakah) and can be extended to all, rich or poor.  Levinas’s philosophy can even be seen as an “excessive” expression of chesed, amplifying the biblical call to ethical responsibility into a radical, non-reciprocal demand. Overall, while Levinas presents his ideas through Western phenomenological lenses, their roots in Jewish textual and conceptual traditions are profound and intentional.

In Christianity, we have agape love as love of enemy as more important than self, shown in places like the sermon on the mount (You have heard it said in Judaism love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I say to you love your enemy, turn the other cheek, and bless those who persecute you) and Christ dying to save his enemies

CONCLUSION

In Christianity, the concept of mysterium tremendum—coined by theologian Rudolf Otto in his 1917 work The Idea of the Holy—refers to the awe-inspiring, overwhelming, and fear-inducing aspect of encountering the divine or the numinous, which evokes a sense of mystery, majesty, and human insignificance in the face of God’s holiness. This “tremendous mystery” often pairs with mysterium fascinans, the attractive or fascinating pull toward the sacred, but the tremendum emphasizes the terrifying power that can make one feel utterly small, sinful, or unworthy, much like Isaiah’s vision in the temple where he cries out, “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips” (Isaiah 6:5).

It can reasonably be interpreted as manifesting in the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, which Christians view as an ultimate act of divine power that confronts and overwhelms human sinfulness, leading to a personal “crucifixion” of the worldly self. Otto himself linked the numinous experience to themes of sin and propitiation through sacrifice, where the holy provokes a profound awareness of one’s moral inadequacy and the need for atonement. In this light, Jesus’ crucifixion represents a mysterium tremendum because it embodies God’s wrath against sin (Romans 3:25) while simultaneously offering redemptive grace, evoking “fear and trembling” as described in Philippians 2:12–13: “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you.” This aligns with Pauline theology, where believers are “crucified with Christ” (Galatians 2:20), dying to their sinful nature (Romans 6:6) through union with his sacrifice—a process that can feel overwhelmingly mysterious and daunting, stripping away worldly attachments in a transformative encounter with the divine. Christian thinkers and mystics have echoed this: the cross is not just a historical event but a numinous reality that “overruns” the ego and sinful impulses, fostering humility and repentance in the face of God’s holiness.

On the one hand, we have the cross as a payment for our sin debt, but also especially in Mark’s satirical trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin and Luke moral influence cross, the mystery is to co-convict you with the humanity who wrongfully turned on God’s especially beloved (agapetos) Jesus to inspire a change of mind/repentance (metanoia) to create space for God to forgive.