Transcendence in Philosophy and ReligionIndiana University Press, 16. apr 2003 - 160 pages Can transcendence be both philosophical and religious? Do philosophers and theologians conceive of the same thing when they think and talk about transcendence? Philosophy and religion have understood transcendence and other matters of faith differently, but both the language and concepts of religion, including transcendence, reside at the core of postmodern philosophy. Transcendence in Philosophy and Religion considers whether it is possible to analyze religious transcendence in a philosophical manner, and if so, whether there is a way for phenomenology to think transcendence directly. Attention is devoted to the role of French philosophy, particularly the work of Levinas, Ricoeur, Derrida, and Marion, in defining recent debates in the philosophy of religion and posing new ways of thinking about religious experience in a postmodern world. |
From inside the book
Results 1-5 of 25
... problem , but in a way quite different than it becomes with Hume and then Kant . The question was how to do so , not whether one could . However , with Critique of Pure Reason , all questions of transcendence are put outside the realm ...
... problem of transcendence in philosophy in its various manifestations . Nevertheless , they deny that they have ceased to do phenome- nology or that they are doing theology . As the discussion between the two sides shows , the question ...
... problem of justice is straightforward : We must go beyond our own contexts and histories if we are to be just , but there is no acontextual and ahistorical vantage point from which to do so . Though we often invoke the Golden Rule as a ...
... problem of transcendence by saying that , on the one hand , philosophy can have nothing to do with what absents itself absolutely and , on the other hand , some realities withdraw from all presence . Having set up the problem in that ...
... problem is that Marion takes a Heideggerian stance but makes criticisms of Heidegger that can make sense only from a non - Heideggerian standpoint . In addition , she argues , Marion's own position is invalid because its premises assume ...