MICHAEL POLANYI'S DARING EPISTEMOLOGY AND THE HUNGER FOR TELEOLOGY

Abstract. The linking of Michael Polanyi's name with a center (now changed to another name) at Baylor University that espoused intelligent‐design theory calls for examination of Polanyi's teleology. This examination attempts to put Polanyi's epistemology in the perspective of his total philosophical work by looking at the clarification of teleology in philosophy of biology and in the framework of three major features of Polanyi's thought: open and truth‐oriented, purposive but open to truth, and transcendent yet intelligible. The conclusion is that Polanyi would not support intelligent design according to the nature of his own theory.     

MICHAEL POLANYI'S DEFENSE OF SPONTANEOUS ORDER

Michael Polanyi is best known for his work in epistemology and the philosophy of science. Less frequently discussed, but still a significant aspect of his work, is his political theory. He is an advocate of a free society which is based on "spontaneous order." This concept is apparent in an early collection of essays entitled The Logic of Liberty , and is emphasized again in his last book, Meaning. In the latter work, Polanyi's method of argumentation involves citing three objections to the endorsement of spontaneous order, and then offering a rebuttal to each. His discussion in this regard, while brief, provides an excellent opportunity for insight into a pivotal topic in his politics. In what follows here I will offer first a brief summary of Polanyi's position on spontaneous order and certain related concepts. Then I will examine his responses to the three objections he poses, and point out their deficiencies. Involved are a commonplace logical fallacy, the tendency to underestimate the power of economic interests and egoistic motivations, and, ultimately, an overstated and untenable epistemological position which does not adequately support, but instead undermines, his political position.     

THE ACHIEVEMENT OF MICHAEL WYSCHOGROD

Michael Wyschogrod is the most important Jewish thinker in the Modern Orthodox tradition since Joseph Soloveitchik. The key to Wyschogrod's significance consists in the point where he differs from Soloveitchik most dramatically. Whereas Soloveitchik held that “the religious or theological logos should not be employed as the medium of communication between two [different] faith communities”, Wyschogrod regards such communication as a Jewish imperative. The essay explores Wyschogrod's use of “the theological logos as the medium of communication” with reference to his understanding of the relation of faith and reason as illustrated by the story of Franz Redner, a Holocaust survivor.     

QUESTIONING POLANYI'S MEANING: A RESPONSE TO RONALD HALL

Abstract. Michael Polanyi's distinction between the indicative meaning of scientific statements and the symbolic and metaphorical meaning of art and religion, presented in Meaning , is based on an abstraction from concrete experience and betrays an inadequate understanding of religious discourse, particularly the discourse of the Judaeo-Christian tradition. In fact, Polanyi's vision in Personal Knowledge , which analyses the priority of personal action to all achievements of explication, seems either to be denied or forgotton by the positions taken in Meaning. Hence, the argument here is that Meaning is a deviation from Personal Knowledge and a step away from the resources necessary to grasp adequately the logic of religious discourse.     

ESCHATOLOGY IN THE POLITICAL THEORY OF MICHAEL WALZER

This essay examines the relevance of eschatological themes to the political theory of Michael Walzer. A distinctive eschatological hope is identified, which functions as a guide to thought throughout Walzer's writings, even though he seldom expresses it (and sometimes denies it). This analysis of Walzer's work demonstrates that eschatology is relevant to the contemporary discussion of justice, and conversely, that contemporary political theory can be a guide for the construction and evaluation of theological doctrines of eschatology. Any eschatology that enters into political debate in a modern, pluralistic society like the United States, however, must have at least one important characteristic: it must be informed by a profound sense of limitation.