Ernst Jünger, DIE SCHERE #39 Text Daß die Zurechtweisung des Schreckens den Antonius auszeichnete, geht aus seiner Vita im Ganzen wie im Einzelnen hervor, zum Beispiel aus seinem Zuspruch an den blinden Didymus, den er verehrte und dem er in Alexandria begegnete. Er hatte ihn gefragt, ob er den Verlust des Augenlichts betrauere, was jener nicht leugnete. Antonius tröstete ihn: was sei eine Sache, die der Mensch mit Mücken und Ameisen teile, im Vergleich zu den geistigen Augen, die erlaubten, sogar die Engel zu sehen.
Sokrates hätte das anders gesagt, und auch wir, zweihundert Jahre nach Kant, fänden andere Worte dafür. Das tut nichts zur Sache; es gibt ein Licht für die Blinden -abgesehen davon, daß Musik sie stärker erleuchtet als vordem. Das greift in den Alltag - man hört von Blinden, die operiert wurden und den Arzt beschrieben, den sie zuvor weder gesehen noch gekannt hatten. Übrigens lehnte Antonius es ab, sich mit dem »vom Logos erleuchteten« Sokrates zu befassen, wie ihm empfohlen wurde - sein Buch sei die Natur. Didymus war früh erblindet; er galt in Alexandria, wo es an großen Geistern nicht fehlte, als »Allberühmter« und als einer der ersten Gelehrten seiner Zeit. Besonders erfreulich ist, daß er die Vorexistenz der Seelen anerkannte und die Ewigkeit der Höllenstrafen ablehnte. Eben deshalb wurde seine Lehre von späteren Synoden verworfen und ihm kein Platz unter den Kirchenvätern gewährt. Auch darin folgte er seinem Vorbild Origines. DIE SCHERE #39: DIE SCHERE #39: Translation by Gary Kern That the correction of fear distinguished Antonius emerges from his vita in general as well as in particular, for example from his words of encouragement to the blind Didymus, whom he esteemed, when he met him in Alexandria. He asked him whether he lamented losing the light of his eyes, which Didymus did not deny. Antonius consoled him: what was a thing that man shares with gnats and ants in comparison with the eyes of the mind that enable one to see even angels. Socrates would have put it differently, and we, too, 200 years after Kant, would find different words for it. But that does not matter; there is a light for the blind, not to mention that music enlightens them more forcefully than before. That applies to everyday life--one hears of blind people who were operated upon and who described the surgeon whom they had never seen or known before. Incidentally, when advised to study Socrates, who was "enlightened by the logos," Antonius declined--his book was nature. Didymus was blinded early in life. In Alexandria, where there was no lack of great minds, he was known as the "All Famous" and as one of the foremost scholars of his time. It is especially delightful that he accepted the pre-existence of the soul and rejected the eternity of hell's punishments. Precisely for that reason his teachings were condemned by later synods and he was accorded no place among the church fathers. Here too he followed his paragon, Origenes. DIE SCHERE #39: Notes by Günter Rebing EJ digresses here from the topic of second sight by explaining why Antonius (also called Saint Anthony in the encyclopedias but since EJ drops the "Sankt" translating "Antonius" seems more appropriate) having been introduced because he was gifted with a kind of second sight, is interesting and important for him in other respects, too. He withstood the onslaught of the demons that had come to tempt him; they must have been terrible for him in spite of the beautiful images they might have brought along because he was a hermit who had dedicated his life to God and to purity of mind. What made him resist and even triumph over his adversaries was his radical Platonic conviction that the corporeal eye and what is sees is inferior to the mind's eye which is capable of perceiving the angels, divine reality that really matters. Socrates would have granted that the eye of the mind can see the logos, but Kant taught that the mind can never directly perceive the Ding-an-sich, the real reality; so our latterday conception of what the eye of the mind is capable of seeing will differ from what Antonius believed. However, EJ brushes aside our modern agnosticism and sides with Antonius. As he does elsewhere in this book EJ cites an everyday occult phenomenon as proof. Digressing now even further afield, EJ adds a more personal note. Like his mentor, Origen, Didymus held certain heretic ideas which are dear to EJ: that the individual soul exists before the body is born, and that there is no eternal punishment in hell - or, as Origines believed more radically, that there will not even be a Last Judgment: Omnium rerum finis erit vitiorum abolitio (1) (1) See DIE SCHERE #16. At the end of all things all sins will be disregarded (=Das Ende aller Dinge wird aller Schuld Vergessung sein).
