{"id":{"repo_id":"uwtsd","oai_identifier":"oai:repository.uwtsd.ac.uk:349"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/uwtsd/oai:repository.uwtsd.ac.uk:349","repository":{"repo_id":"uwtsd","name":"University of Wales Trinity Saint David","base_url":"https://repository.uwtsd.ac.uk/cgi/oai2"},"display":{"title":"Jacques Derrida and Jean-Luc Marion on the (im)possibility of negative theology.","abstract":"In a series of discussions culminating in a conference organized by Villanova University, Jacques Derrida and Jean-Luc Marion argue the impossibility of negative theology. For Derrida, negative theology operates via “denegations” that lead to a hyper-theology affirming God as hyperousious. “Mystical theology” embodies this hyper-movement and, so, is no longer apophatic. For Marion, negative theology is not self-sufficient but ushers the hyperbolic and pragmatic mode of knowing God by unknowing or “denominating” God. Mystical theology is a “theology of absence”, a higher apophasis that overcomes both affirmation and negation. However, Derrida understands mystical theology as a discourse of presence. It promises union with God, a teleological fulfilment of presence that is more ontological than apophatic. Marion disagrees, arguing for the possibility of a presence exceeding ontology: The “Saturated phenomenon” (Revelation), where intuition of presence exceeds and disqualifies all concepts and intentions. Presence exceeds knowledge; it precedes being. As such, Marion’s phenomenology welcomes all phenomena. Derrida finds this problematic. As their discussion on “the Gift” shows, Marion’s phenomenology makes room for revelation as an appearing of the divine itself. Derrida questions if this is still phenomenology that welcomes the other as tout autre, absence. Beginning with Heidegger’s destruktion of ontotheology (Introduction), this discussion subsequently analyzes the respective arguments of Derrida and Marion on the possibility of negative theology (sections 1 and 2). Their arguments reflect the points mentioned above. These are evaluated in light of the conference round-table discussion, “On the Gift” (Conclusion). The conclusion evaluates Derrida and Marion’s discussion as an ideal enactment of the tension between philosophy and theology – a tension that Heidegger identifies as inherent in ontotheology.","abstract_html":"In a series of discussions culminating in a conference organized by Villanova University, Jacques Derrida and Jean-Luc Marion argue the impossibility of negative theology. For Derrida, negative theology operates via “denegations” that lead to a hyper-theology affirming God as hyperousious. “Mystical theology” embodies this hyper-movement and, so, is no longer apophatic. For Marion, negative theology is not self-sufficient but ushers the hyperbolic and pragmatic mode of knowing God by unknowing or “denominating” God. Mystical theology is a “theology of absence”, a higher apophasis that overcomes both affirmation and negation. However, Derrida understands mystical theology as a discourse of presence. It promises union with God, a teleological fulfilment of presence that is more ontological than apophatic. Marion disagrees, arguing for the possibility of a presence exceeding ontology: The “Saturated phenomenon” (Revelation), where intuition of presence exceeds and disqualifies all concepts and intentions. Presence exceeds knowledge; it precedes being. As such, Marion’s phenomenology welcomes all phenomena. Derrida finds this problematic. As their discussion on “the Gift” shows, Marion’s phenomenology makes room for revelation as an appearing of the divine itself. Derrida questions if this is still phenomenology that welcomes the other as tout autre, absence. Beginning with Heidegger’s destruktion of ontotheology (Introduction), this discussion subsequently analyzes the respective arguments of Derrida and Marion on the possibility of negative theology (sections 1 and 2). Their arguments reflect the points mentioned above. These are evaluated in light of the conference round-table discussion, “On the Gift” (Conclusion). The conclusion evaluates Derrida and Marion’s discussion as an ideal enactment of the tension between philosophy and theology – a tension that Heidegger identifies as inherent in ontotheology.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Jenq, Jacob Moh Yii"],"institution":"University of Wales Trinity Saint David","degree_name":"mth","degree_level":"masters","degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2014,"date_issued":"2014","date_published":"2014","updated_at":"2026-07-24T05:52:44Z","subjects":["BL Crefydd"],"languages":[],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.grantnumber","label":"Dc Identifier Grantnumber","values":["UWTSD"],"render_values":[{"text":"UWTSD","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://doi.org/10.82227/repository.uwtsd.ac.uk.00000349","outbound_label":"DOI","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.doi"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.sponsor","label":"Sponsor","values":["University of Wales Trinity Saint David"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Jenq, Jacob Moh Yii"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2014"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2014"]},{"key":"dc:publisher.commercial","label":"Dc Publisher Commercial","values":["University of Wales Trinity Saint David"]},{"key":"dc:publisher.department","label":"Dc Publisher Department","values":["Traethodau Meistr"]},{"key":"dc:publisher.institution","label":"Dc Publisher Institution","values":["University of Wales Trinity Saint David"]},{"key":"dc:relation.isreferencedby","label":"Dc Relation Isreferencedby","values":["https://repository.uwtsd.ac.uk/id/eprint/349/"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Gosodiad"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationlevel","label":"Dc Type Qualificationlevel","values":["masters"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationname","label":"Dc Type Qualificationname","values":["mth"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["BL Crefydd"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.doi","label":"DOI","values":["10.82227/repository.uwtsd.ac.uk.00000349"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.grantnumber","label":"Dc Identifier Grantnumber","values":["UWTSD"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["https://repository.uwtsd.ac.uk/id/eprint/349/1/Jacob%20Moh%20Yii%20Jenq.pdf"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["In a series of discussions culminating in a conference organized by Villanova University, Jacques Derrida and Jean-Luc Marion argue the impossibility of negative theology. For Derrida, negative theology operates via “denegations” that lead to a hyper-theology affirming God as hyperousious. “Mystical theology” embodies this hyper-movement and, so, is no longer apophatic. For Marion, negative theology is not self-sufficient but ushers the hyperbolic and pragmatic mode of knowing God by unknowing or “denominating” God. Mystical theology is a “theology of absence”, a higher apophasis that overcomes both affirmation and negation. However, Derrida understands mystical theology as a discourse of presence. It promises union with God, a teleological fulfilment of presence that is more ontological than apophatic. Marion disagrees, arguing for the possibility of a presence exceeding ontology: The “Saturated phenomenon” (Revelation), where intuition of presence exceeds and disqualifies all concepts and intentions. Presence exceeds knowledge; it precedes being. As such, Marion’s phenomenology welcomes all phenomena. Derrida finds this problematic. As their discussion on “the Gift” shows, Marion’s phenomenology makes room for revelation as an appearing of the divine itself. Derrida questions if this is still phenomenology that welcomes the other as tout autre, absence. Beginning with Heidegger’s destruktion of ontotheology (Introduction), this discussion subsequently analyzes the respective arguments of Derrida and Marion on the possibility of negative theology (sections 1 and 2). Their arguments reflect the points mentioned above. These are evaluated in light of the conference round-table discussion, “On the Gift” (Conclusion). The conclusion evaluates Derrida and Marion’s discussion as an ideal enactment of the tension between philosophy and theology – a tension that Heidegger identifies as inherent in ontotheology."]},{"key":"dc:format","label":"Dc Format","values":["text"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Jacques Derrida and Jean-Luc Marion on the (im)possibility of negative theology."]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.sponsor":["University of Wales Trinity Saint David"],"dc:creator":["Jenq, Jacob Moh Yii"],"dc:date":["2014"],"dc:date.issued":["2014"],"dc:description.abstract":["In a series of discussions culminating in a conference organized by Villanova University, Jacques Derrida and Jean-Luc Marion argue the impossibility of negative theology. For Derrida, negative theology operates via “denegations” that lead to a hyper-theology affirming God as hyperousious. “Mystical theology” embodies this hyper-movement and, so, is no longer apophatic. For Marion, negative theology is not self-sufficient but ushers the hyperbolic and pragmatic mode of knowing God by unknowing or “denominating” God. Mystical theology is a “theology of absence”, a higher apophasis that overcomes both affirmation and negation. However, Derrida understands mystical theology as a discourse of presence. It promises union with God, a teleological fulfilment of presence that is more ontological than apophatic. Marion disagrees, arguing for the possibility of a presence exceeding ontology: The “Saturated phenomenon” (Revelation), where intuition of presence exceeds and disqualifies all concepts and intentions. Presence exceeds knowledge; it precedes being. As such, Marion’s phenomenology welcomes all phenomena. Derrida finds this problematic. As their discussion on “the Gift” shows, Marion’s phenomenology makes room for revelation as an appearing of the divine itself. Derrida questions if this is still phenomenology that welcomes the other as tout autre, absence. Beginning with Heidegger’s destruktion of ontotheology (Introduction), this discussion subsequently analyzes the respective arguments of Derrida and Marion on the possibility of negative theology (sections 1 and 2). Their arguments reflect the points mentioned above. These are evaluated in light of the conference round-table discussion, “On the Gift” (Conclusion). The conclusion evaluates Derrida and Marion’s discussion as an ideal enactment of the tension between philosophy and theology – a tension that Heidegger identifies as inherent in ontotheology."],"dc:format":["text"],"dc:identifier.doi":["10.82227/repository.uwtsd.ac.uk.00000349"],"dc:identifier.grantnumber":["UWTSD"],"dc:identifier.uri":["https://repository.uwtsd.ac.uk/id/eprint/349/1/Jacob%20Moh%20Yii%20Jenq.pdf"],"dc:publisher.commercial":["University of Wales Trinity Saint David"],"dc:publisher.department":["Traethodau Meistr"],"dc:publisher.institution":["University of Wales Trinity Saint David"],"dc:relation.isreferencedby":["https://repository.uwtsd.ac.uk/id/eprint/349/"],"dc:subject":["BL Crefydd"],"dc:title":["Jacques Derrida and Jean-Luc Marion on the (im)possibility of negative theology."],"dc:type":["Gosodiad"],"dc:type.qualificationlevel":["masters"],"dc:type.qualificationname":["mth"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T05:52:44Z"}