Scientific monism.--Evolution as a psycho-physical process.--Purpose.--The conceptual limit.--Factors of moral responsibility.--Social welfare.--Justice.--Heredity.--Environment.--Perception.--Psychic determinism.--The associative principle in evolution.--The origin and development of morals.--The intuitional factor in morals.--Necessary truths.--Relativity in the moral world.
One of the most extensive yet least conclusive methodological debates within religious studies revolves around the question of what, precisely, the phenomenology of religion is and what contribution it can make to the study of religion. I do not intend to answer this important question here. To do so satisfactorily would require a range of historical, philosophical and methodological inquiry which would go quite beyond the bounds of a single article. My intention in this paper is, by comparison, unambitious. It (...) is to take one view of what phenomenology of religion is and to consider an area outside that usually explored by students of religion which can, nonetheless, shed some light on how religions might be studied in a way which is in accordance with the phenomenology of religion so understood. What follows will offer an answer to the question of what contribution one particular understanding of phenomenology might make to the study of religion, but no attempt will be made to establish whether or not this particular understanding ought to be regarded as normative. (shrink)
The texts before us are relatively early works. They predate the famous Manifesto of the Communist Party of 1848. Their importance lies in this: that here historical materialism is outlined and defended for the first time. This new philosophy is elaborated in the course of Marx and Engels' effort to settle accounts with previous German philosophy—and, perhaps, with philosophy as such. The new outlook is developed, therefore, in the context of polemic against Hegel and Feuerbach, precisely the thinkers that they (...) most admired earlier in fact. (shrink)
This is a transcript of Milne's manuscript notes for a talk which he gave to fellow members of the Cambridge University Natural Science Club in his rooms at Trinity College, Cambridge, on February 6, 1922. The notes are deposited in the Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, Special Collections and Western Manuscripts. The background and essential points of Milne's talk are analysed in the article preceding this one. As far as is known, the text has not hitherto been published. Milne's handwriting (...) is difficult to read, and square brackets [...] denote the addition of a word for clarity of meaning. Meg Weston Smith and Simon Rebsdorf have ventured to fill in some chapter titles just in order to help with the separation of the varying content, hence we have made up all the headlines. All italics correspond to underlined words in the original. The Bergson citations and the Eddington passage at the end of the original text have not been transcribed. (shrink)
Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited his people, he has come to their rescue and he has raised up a power for salvation in the House of his servant David.” Thus exclaimed the Lanercost chronicler after recounting the glorious deeds of King Edward III at Crécy and Calais in 1346–47. By the middle years of his reign Edward was already commonly seen as the divinely inspired instrument of English salvation, the epitome of Old (...) Testament kingship, and an exemplar for Christian princes. English writers and artists made enthusiastic comparisons with Samson and David, with Arthur and Charlemagne. Edward was frequently portrayed as the great boar which, according to certain well-known political prophecies, would subdue England's enemies and restore the kingdom to its former greatness. (shrink)
As critics, a vital part of our task is to examine the ways in which language mystifies and reveals, serves and disserves human desires and aspirations. In that spirit we feel that engaging the leading Palestinian intellectual in the United States in a critical dialogue is a vital task. Although this reply takes issue with several points in Edward Said’s paper, “An Ideology of Difference” , our critique is intended as part of the struggle for increased mutual empathy. We (...) in no way wish to deny Said’s claims regarding the legitimacy of Palestinian aspirations, nor the validity of Said and other Palestinian intellectuals’ efforts to counter the destructive military, political, and ideological forces that stand in the way of the Palestinians’ achievement and self-determination. Said’s critiques of the idea that Israel is somehow above criticism, and of the elimination of the Palestinians from “Western” discourse, are both valid.2We wish to make our own perspective clear at the start. We are both Jewish nationalists. We believe that it’s a good thing to be Jewish. We believe that those of Jewish heritage who fail to explore and re-create that heritage lose something of themselves. We think that Judaism still has a role to play in the healing of the world. By making this statement, we are not claiming that our views are identical,3 nor that they are the same from day to day, nor, a fortiori, that they are identical or even similar to those of many or most other people who would define themselves in that way. This, we note, touches on one of the aspects of Said’s paper of which we are most critical: The statements that he makes at several points, which seem to reify Zionists and Zionism into one model of theory and social practice, as well as his occlusion of the fact that other options for Jewish self-renewal were obviated by genocide or Soviet repression. 2. We are hardly alone among Jewish intellectuals in concurring with this point. Compare the recent comments by the American Jewish leader Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg:In memory of the Holocaust we have been reminded by you that silence is a sin. You have spoken out against indifference and injustice. Why are you making a special exception of Israel? Do you think that our silence will help Israel? The texts that we study and restudy teach the contrary. Daniel Boyarin is associate professor of midrash at Bar-Ilan University. His articles on midrash and theory have appeared in Poetics Today and Representations, and a monograph on the subject is forthcoming this year. Jonathan Boyarin is a fellow of the Max Weinreich Center at the VIVO Institute for Jewish Research. He edited and translated, with Jack Kugelmass, From a Ruined Garden: The Memorial Books of Polish Jewry, and is currently completing an ethnography of Polish Jews in Paris. He is active in the International Jewish Peace Union. (shrink)
Generations of Plantagenet, Lancastrian, and Tudor kings accepted the Arthurian legend as at worst a convenient historical fiction to support their claim for a sovereign England, independent of the French crown. Several, including Edward I, Edward III, and Henry VII, clearly recognized and exploited its potential as political propaganda for their imperial ambitions. Thus, the fact that for many Englishmen in the Middle Ages and afterwards the Arthurian legend and politics were inextricably bound up together has encouraged many (...) modern critics to look for political statements or even historical allegories in English Arthurian literature. In the case of the Alliterative Morte Arthure, there has been a steady and vigorous tradition of belief that the portrait of Arthur in that poem implies a comment on Edward III and his continental campaigns. Perhaps because Edward enthusiastically promoted the idea of himself as a new Arthur in the minds of his countrymen, an extensive identification of Edward and the hero of this alliterative poem has long been taken for granted. Roger Sherman Loomis, for example, begins his commentary on the poem by asking, “Who can help … recognizing in its hero a strong resemblance to Edward, third of the Plantagenet line?”. (shrink)