Wittgenstein on the Resurrection
Philosophical Investigations 33 (4):321-338 (2010)
| Abstract | Wittgenstein probably did not believe in Christ's Resurrection (as an historical event), but he may well have believed that if he had achieved a higher level of devoutness he would believe it. His view seems to have been that devout Christians are right in holding onto this belief tenaciously even though, in fact, it's false. It's historical falsity, is compatible with its religious validity, so to speak. So far as I can see, he did not think that devout Christians should believe that it doesn't really matter whether or not that alleged historical event occurred | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,672 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesMichael Martin (1998). Why the Resurrection is Initially Improbable. Philo 1 (1):63-73.
G. G. O'collins (1967). Is the Resurrection an 'Historical' Event? Heythrop Journal 8 (4):381-387.
S. J. G. G. O'collins (1967). Is the Resurrection an 'Historical' Event? Heythrop Journal 8 (4):381–387.
Stephen T. Davis (1999). Is Belief in the Resurrection Rational? Philo 2 (1):51-61.
Robert Greg Cavin (1995). Is There Sufficient Historical Evidence to Establish the Resurrection of Jesus? Faith and Philosophy 12 (3):361-379.
Eric Steinhart (2008). The Revision Theory of Resurrection. Religious Studies 44 (1):63-81.
Stephen T. Davis (2000). The Rationality of Resurrection for Christians. Philo 3 (1):41-51.
James A. Keller (1988). Comtemporary Christian Doubts About the Resurrection. Faith and Philosophy 5 (1):40-60.
Michael Martin (2000). Christianity and the Rationality of the Resurrection. Philo 3 (1):52-62.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-09-29Total downloads140 ( #2,991 of 549,068 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,185 of 549,068 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
| Start a new thread | There is 1 thread in this forum |
| 2010-01-18 | |
|
Hugh Chandler
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign |
This much seems clear. Wittgenstein held that Christians, at some level of devoutness, should believe in the alleged historical event (believe that it actually occurred – could have been photographed, etc.) but with a sort of certainty, and fervor, that is quite inappropriate in regard to historical events in general. Something like that? I think it is clear that he did not think that they should keep the objective uncertainty of such beliefs in mind. That is to say, he was strongly opposed to what I take to be the Kierkegaardian view.
Latest replies:
|
