Finitude, Fallenness, and Immediacy

Philosophia Christi 13 (1):105-126 (2011)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Merold Westphal and James K. A. Smith argue forcefully that Christians should embrace the postmodern turn to interpretation. They draw upon Derrida and Heidegger, and they criticize Edmund Husserl’s “metaphysics of presence” and our ability to know reality directly. They reject his epistemology as modern and arrogant, as an attempt to gain pristine knowledge. But I argue that they radically misunderstand and therefore wrongly reject Husserl. This will allow me to show why their view, that “everything is interpretation,” is mistaken. It also will allow me to show why Husserl’s earlier work shows us how we can know reality immediately.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,202

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Levinas and the Immediacy of the Face.Merold Westphal - 1993 - Faith and Philosophy 10 (4):486-502.
Replies to Comments in Symposium on Patricia Smith Churchland's Neurophilosophy.P. Smith Churchland - 1986 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 29 (2):241-272.
Being, Immediacy, and Articulation.John E. Smith - 1971 - Review of Metaphysics 24 (4):593 - 613.
Lyotard and the Christian Metanarrative.Justin Thacker - 2005 - Faith and Philosophy 22 (3):301-315.
L’après coup du désir.Fabio Ciaramelli - 2006 - Studia Phaenomenologica 6:97-115.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-01-31

Downloads
11 (#1,075,532)

6 months
2 (#1,157,335)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references