Phenomenology of religion: Levinas and the fourth voice

International Journal for Philosophy of Religion -     

Kierkegaard,Levinas and the Question of Escaping Metaphysics

While Kierkegaard and Levinas may well be thought of as religious or ethical thinkers, I should not like the reader to be misled by this into assuming that this article is primarily about religion or ethics. Rather, my main concern may more properly be described as metaphysical or epistemological, for I am interested in certain styles of thinking that underlie the religious/ethical themes dealt with here. Thus, this article aims to show that in relation to traditional metaphysical styles, and to each other, the thinking of Kierkegaard and Levinas is parallel and divergent in complex ways. Both share a mistrust of modernist metaphysics, which they aim to escape by pointing to the way in which conceptions of metaphysical totalities (or systems) are breached by a destabilising infinity already internal to them. This anticipates later postmodern styles of thinking which challenge modern metaphysics, its resentment against time, and its confidence in human power to represent all that is by means of closed systems of interpretation. To the extent that they offer philosophical alternatives that accommodate the temporal, both have had highly significant contributions to make to a postmodern style of thinking that has implications not limited to religion or ethics. A study of the philosophical strategies of these two thinkers, where they seem to succeed or fall short in relation to each other and to the traditional strategies of metaphysics, should go some way toward clarification of what I believe to be the most viable style of thinking for a postmodern world. As I see it, one is confronted with three options. The first, represented by Kierkegaard’s ‘infinite resignation,’ may be associated with a Derridean style of thinking. Kierkegaard himself abandons this in favour of a style of thinking for which faith and revelation stand as metaphors. Levinas, in contrast, offers an alternative whose leitmotif is ethical responsibility. I shall try to show in the end that the first of these, which best accommodates the ‘undecidability’ of a middle ground, is the most suitable for contemporary thinkers.     

Reason as propaedeutic to faith in Augustine

International Journal for Philosophy of Religion -     

In the beginning was violence: Emmanuel Levinas on religion and violence

Continental Philosophy Review - It is the aim of this contribution to question the two conceptions of violence in the later Levinas. One of the face, the other the violence that must be overcome by...     

Difficulties in Defining the Concept of God: Kierkegaard in Dialogue with Levinas,Buber, and Rosenzweig

This article investigates difficulties in defining the concept of God by focusing on the question of what it means to understand God as a ‘person.’ This question is explored with respect to the work of Søren Kierkegaard, in dialogue with Franz Rosenzweig, Martin Buber, and Emmanuel Levinas. Thereby, the following three questions regarding divine ‘personhood’ come into view: First, how can God be a partner of dialogue if he at the same time remains unknown and unthinkable, a limit-concept of understanding? Second, if God is love in person and at the same time a spiritual reality ‘between’ human agents, in what ways are his personal and trans-personal traits related to each other? Third, what exactly is revealed through God’s ‘name’? By way of an inconclusive conclusion, divine personhood is discussed in regard to prayer, where the problems of predication that arise in third-personal speech about God are linked with the second-personal encounter with God.

     

Jane Ellen Harrison's contribution to the study of religion

Sandra J. Peacock, Jane Ellen Harrison: The Mask and the Self, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1988.     

Beyond dogmatism: The need for closure as related to religion

Our theoretical assumption is that behind the dogmatism-religion positive but not systematic relation, a clearer one may exist between religion and need for closure (Webster & Kruglanski, 1994). A positive association of religiosity with need for closure was hypothesized (except with the decisiveness facet). Subjects ( n = 239) were administered the Need for Closure Scale (NFCS), the Religious Fundamentalism Scale and a two-dimensional religiosity scale. Religious fundamentalism was positively correlated with the total NFCS, preference for order and predictability. Classic religiosity predicted high need for closure (all facets except decisiveness). However, spirituality-emotional religion was associated with low close-mindedness and low decisiveness but still high discomfort with ambiguity. Discussion includes arguments favouring the usefulness of the need for closure construct for understanding many aspects of religious personality (e.g. dogmatism, authoritarianism, prejudice, multiple conversions, distinction between permanence in order-closure and urgency for closure).     

The Skin as Seen: Thinking Through Racialized Subjectivities and Pedagogy with Levinas

Studies in Philosophy and Education - From a Levinasian perspective, the interaction between two people is an ethical encounter, a face-to-face interaction that calls the subject into question and...     

Jung as psychologist of religion and Jung as philosopher of religion

Abstract: Is it possible to be both a psychologist and a philosopher? Is it possible for a psychologist, or more generally a social scientist, to use social scientific findings to make philosophical claims? Specifically, is it possible for a social scientist to use social scientific findings to determine the existence of God? Did Jung profess to be only a psychologist or also a philosopher? If he professed to be both, did he enlist his psychological findings to make philosophical claims? Specifically, did he enlist his psychological findings to determine the existence of God?