Variations in Philosophical Genre: the Platonic Dialogue

The primary function of the Platonic dialogue is not the communication of philosophical doctrines but the transformation of the reader's character. This article takes up the question of how, or by what means, the Platonic dialogue accomplishes its transformative goal. An answer is developed as follows. First, the style of reading associated with analytical philosophy is not transformative, on account of its hermeneutical attachment and epistemic equality in the relationship between reader and author. Secondly, the style of reading associated with the genre of commentary is transformative because it is governed by a principle of authority. When the commentary model is applied to the Platonic dialogue, it can be seen that the dialogue mimics the function of the authority principle in transforming the reader into a commentator, that is, someone who reads from a position of detachment and accepts responsibility for himself as moral and epistemic agent.     

“We Got To Live Together”: The Psychology of Encounter and the Politics of Engagement

The article is set in the normative claim that our work as political psychologists emerges from concerns with our contemporary worlds and that political psychologists should not hesitate to draw out the policy implications of their own work. Following a brief explanation of the Allport tradition of the contact hypothesis and its critics, the article proposes four analytical considerations that contribute to the further understanding of the psychology of encounter and the politics of engagement: First, the insight that the individual is already constituted as a social being, through contact; second, an exploration of the opportunities and challenges of dialogue; third, the changing nature of selfhood, agency, and identity in the contemporary world; and, finally, through deep multiculturalism, the cosmopolitical perspective, and the politics of care, the case for a viable and sustainable politics of engagement.     

The limits of interfaith? Interfaith identities,emerging potentialities,and exclusivity

Interfaith movements within the United States are currently attempting to integrate nonreligionists – agnostics, unaffiliated, humanists, and atheists for example – into their dialogical spaces. We argue that this attempt to further inclusivity within interfaith movements, although well-intended, is impeded by what we refer to as the interfaith identity paradigm. This paradigm focuses on concretised religious identities through a confessional model, which powerfully circumscribes intended efforts to engage with multi-layered experiences and radical inclusiveness. As such, we utilise contemporary anthropological theories regarding subjectivity to demonstrate that the interfaith identity paradigm results in limited participation by nonreligionists. Based on several months of participant observation at multiple interfaith meetings, this article intends to initiate a conversation among interfaith practitioners endeavouring to cultivate inviting and open spaces for religionists and nonreligionists alike. The objective of this article is not to offer solutions, but to point out a constraining practice prevalent within interfaith meetings within the United States.     

Acts of betrayal. Reading the letters of Wilhelm Stekel to Sigmund Freud

Abstract

This paper presents a discussion of the previously unpublished correspondence between Stekel and Freud. The authors start with a brief overview of most important historic events and facts that constitute the context against which these letters should be read. The matters cover questions of publishing policy, personal priorities, and psychoanalytic principles. The authors suggest that the Stekel letters may have been preserved by Freud as evidence of the latter's estrangement from him, as tokens of betrayal. A minute discussion of the correspondence makes it possible to discuss day-to-day developments in this fateful relation, taking into account Stekel's side of the story for the first time as well, highlighting the backfiring of a strategic maneuver by Stekel to psychoanalyse the Freud family, which heralded his downfall, and also revealing the role that Victor Tausk played in this. The paper concludes with a discussion of the dialectics of estrangement.     

The end of Jesus' mission and the honor of God in the Qur'an: the search for common ground between Muslims and Christians

Jesus is important for both Muslims and Christians, and this has led some in both groups to search for common ground concerning him. Nevertheless, two important points of disagreement concern the Christian claims that Jesus is the Son of God, and that Jesus was put to death on the cross. The present article focuses on the last point, noting four key qur'anic passages (Q 3.55; 4.157–8; 5.117; and 19.33). Muslim commentators have mostly denied the historical aspect of Jesus' crucifixion, advocating some version of a substitutionist theory whereby the Jews crucified someone other than Jesus, while Jesus himself was taken alive by God into heaven. Muslim–Christian dialogue on this issue remains problematic. The present article encourages mutual exploration of a theological dimension of the end of Jesus' mission, that of the honor of God. Both Muslims and Christians affirm that God maintained his honor by thwarting the Jews' attempt to get rid of Jesus. The usual Muslim belief is that God rescued him alive to heaven before the crucifixion, while the Christian understanding is that God vindicated Jesus through the resurrection and ascension. Similar views of God's honor through his intervention regarding Jesus can contribute to positive Muslim–Christian dialogue.1 An abbreviated form of this paper was delivered at the International Symposium on Qur'an and Contemporary Issues at the University of Nairobi, 5 June 2011.      

Interreligious prayer between Christians and Muslims

This article distinguishes various ways in which the term ‘pray together’ might be understood and focuses on ‘interreligious prayer’, by which is meant here praying together using the same words with two religious groups united in heart and mind, rather than ‘multireligious prayer’, which refers to prayer in the presence of another religious group. The article argues that, in the early literature on the matter, there is a danger of conflating the two different types, and then shows that some Catholic communities, following the initiatives of Pope John Paul II, have reached a consensus that interreligious prayer is problematic, while multireligious prayer is not. The article goes on to consider an essay by Joseph Ratzinger, which discusses the preconditions for interreligious prayer and is very sceptical about its possibility, except perhaps for Christians and Jews. Finally, one of Ratzinger's preconditions for interreligious prayer is used to examine the possible grounds for interreligious prayer between Christians and Muslims, and the article argues that the door is as yet neither closed nor open.     

Apologies: Levinas and Dialogue

Abstract

In his recent article ‘Speech and Sensibility: Levinas and Habermas on the Constitution of the Moral Point of View’, Steven Hendley argues that Levinas’s preoccupation with language as ‘exposure’ to the ‘other’ provides an important corrective to Habermas’s focus on the ‘procedural’ aspects of communication. Specifically, what concerns Hendley is the question of moral motivation, and how Levinas, unlike Habermas, responds to this question by stressing the dialogical relation as one of coming ‘into proximity to the face of the other’ who possesses ‘the authority to command my consideration’. Hendley’s thesis is bold and provocative. However, it relies on too partial a reading of Levinas’s work. In this paper I argue that the sense in which Levinas thinks of ‘justifying oneself’ cannot be adequately understood in terms of an ‘outstretched field of questions and answers’. Rather, Levinas’s primary concern is to show how, prior to dialogue, the ‘I’ is constituted in existential guilt: the violence of simply being‐there.     

Dialogue in Our Cosmic Aloneness

The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) is briefly summarized to serve as a background for making the case that, due to the highly exceptional characteristics of the earth's position and motion in the solar system as well as the precarious history of human evolution, we may be alone in the universe. With the conviction that this cosmic isolation enhances our need for dialogue with God, I discuss the nature of authentic dialogue as exhaustively explored by Martin Buber. I conclude with remarks dealing with the importance of understanding and using Buber's insights on dialogue as a way of satisfying our primal need to communicate with a cosmic “other,” in particular, God. Thus, in contrast to the numerous articles that have discussed the theological implications of SETI being successful, I treat here what it might mean if we are alone.     

Charting the Attributes of God: The Common Ground of Three Religions according to Ramon Llull (1232–1316)

The Open Letter written by 138 major representatives of Islam to the leaders of the Christian churches, on 13 October 2007, came as something of a surprise. Perhaps more surprisingly, in 1283, the Catalan theologian, Ramon Llull, wrote imaginatively of exactly such a letter in one of his novels, thus demonstrating that the interfaith question is not just a problem of our modern times, which became acute only on September 11. On the contrary, the churches have always been conscious of this interfaith context. Yet methods of tackling the problem have differed widely down the centuries and among Christian traditions. The solution proposed by Ramon Llull and analysed in this article starts from the common acceptance of the attributes of God in all three monotheistic religions. It deserves our attention not only as an interesting historical example but also as a way of avoiding some of our current problems and impasses.     

The Last Shall Be First: Human Potential in Genetic and Theological Perspectives

The notion of “human potential” provides a fruitful window through which to explore the competing conceptual frameworks of contemporary genetics and Christianity. The contemporary cultural frame of genetics conceives of human potential in a broadly positive manner: the source of personal and societal flourishing is located within individual bodies, waiting to be identified and unleashed by genetic science and medicine for the good of persons and society. In the Judeo-Christian narrative, human individual, biological potential is far less relevant—and, in fact, may be construed as an impediment to the achievement of personal and social flourishing. Implications for the dialogue between genetics and religion are discussed.