REVIEWS: This is a very helpful volume and a good addition to contemporary scholarship on the valuable and little-known Jaina contribution to philosophy. Prof.Nagin Shah has edited the book well, including clear introduction and a very complete index.

Work on Sankhya system in Hindu philosophy; includes commentaries.

Open theists argue that God's relationship to time, as conceived in classical theism, is erroneous. They explain that it is contradictory for an atemporal being to act in a temporal universe, including experiencing its temporal successions. Contrary to the atemporalists, redemptive history has shown that God interacts with humans in time. This relational nature of God nullifies the classical notion of God as timelessly eternal. Therefore, it lacks a philosophical and theological basis. Because God is in time, He does not (...) know all future contingencies and, therefore, changes. This study examines open theism's appropriation of the A and B theories of time to the divine-human relationship. The study argues that divine temporality does not solve the tension of divine-human relationships, especially in relation to the future. Further, historical divine temporality does not negate the fact of divine atemporality. It mainly stems from God's choice to create temporal creatures and His relationship with them. Furthermore, if it is not logically and metaphysically contradictory for an omnipresent being to act in space, then it follows that an atemporal being can act in time. Whether time is understood from the metric or psychological point of view, it does not transcend God, and therefore, the limitation it places on human creatures with respect to the future does not apply to God. Lastly, although a few philosophers reject the notion of eternity as timelessly eternal, the doctrine has a philosophical and theological basis in the Scripture. (shrink)

Материалы конференции предназначены для специалистов.

Islamic philosophy; Ibn al-Muṭahhar al-Ḥillī, al-Ḥasan ibn Yūsuf, 1250-1325; Muslim scholars; 13th century; history.

Ancient treatise on Sankhya philosophy; Sanskrit text with English and Oriya translation and interpretation.

A clear, complete, and detailed account of the German theological influences on Bonhoeffer, as well as the stages in the movement of his own thinking toward the shattering and prophetic suggestions in the Letters and Papers from Prison. Unfortunately, the book devotes only sixty pages to the direct examination of these final suggestions, which have touched a live nerve in recent theological thought, and is disappointingly hesitant about investigating the possible ramifications of Bonhoeffer's ideas, which point in at least two (...) distinct directions. The Christian's life is said to be one of joining the suffering, powerless Jesus in the world, as well as one of participating in the presence of a beyond in our midst, a beyond which gives itself not in weakness but in strength and life, in "solved problems." Since Bonhoeffer himself recognized the newness of the "religionless" approaches which occurred to him in his last year, one wonders if Phillips' scholarly but unimaginative treatment of this highly admirable man does not obscure more than it illumines.--S. A. S. (shrink)

A popular reworking and extension of the works of Prescott Lecky, forerunner of the "third force" in American psychology, known variously as humanistic, perceptual, transactionist, existential. While the book is highly readable, full of good advice, and pointed in the right direction, it is not even remotely adequate to the difficulty of the subject matter. However, the treatment of coming-into-existence is sensitive.--S. A. S.

Dr. Littleton's book is valuable as a brief but stimulating introduction for the non-scientific layman to various physical data. However, the author's central purpose is to demonstrate that science and religion are compatible by using these data as proof that "science" recognizes the infinite. While some enlightening points are made, Dr. Littleton vitiates his main purpose by making highly problematic philosophical statements with no reasoned support at all.—S. A. S.