Few philosophers have devoted more than passing attention to similarities between the thought of Søren Kierkegaard, a Danish Christian, and Emmanuel Levinas, a French Jew. Here, one of philosophy of religion's most distinctive voices offers a sustained comparison. Focusing on questions surrounding otherness, transcendence, postmodernity, and the nature of religious thought, Merold Westphal draws readers into a dialogue between the two thinkers. Westphal's masterful command of both philosophies shows that each can learn from the other. Levinas and Kierkegaard in Dialogue (...) is an insightful and accessible contribution to philosophical considerations of ethics and religion. (shrink)

The titles in this series present well-edited basic texts to be used in courses and seminars and for teachers looking for a succinct exposition of the results of recent research. Each volume in the series presents the fundamental ideas of a great philosopher by means of a very thorough and up-to-date commentary on one important text. The edition and explanation of the text give insight into the whole of the oeuvre, of which it is an integral part.

Overcoming Onto-theology is a stunning collection of essays by Merold Westphal, one of America’s leading continental philosophers of religion, in which Westphal carefully explores the nature and the structure of a postmodern Christian philosophy. Written with characteristic clarity and charm, Westphal offers masterful studies of Heidegger’s early lectures on Paul and Augustine, the idea of hermeneutics, Schleiermacher, Hegel, Derrida, and Nietzsche, all in the service of building his argument that postmodern thinking offers an indispensable tool for rethinking Christian faith. A (...) must read for every student and professor of continental philosophy and the philosophy of religion, Overcoming Onto-theology is an invaluable collection that brings together in one place fourteen provocative and lucid essays by one of the most important thinkers working in American philosophy today. (shrink)

Westphal shows us that Kierkegaard's philosophy makes an important contribution to what we now call the 'critique of ideology,' embracing both political and sociological concerns, and squarely based upon as affirmation of human reason-a reason that is fully aware of its own nature, neither shirking its responsibilities nor overstepping its capacities. For those who would like to get beyond the myth of Kierkegaard as an apostle of the 'solitary self,' Kierkegaard's Critique of Reason and Society is just the book to (...) read. -Stephen N. Dunning, University of Pennsylvania. (shrink)

"An illuminating and powerful reading of three of the most important contemporary professedly antireligious thinkers... stinging critiques of Freud, Marx, and Nietzsche."-C. Stephen Evans, Society of Christian Philosophers.

"... a profoundly stimulating and satisfying piece of philosophy.... It is a book from which one really can learn something worthwhile." —Idealistic Studies "... exceptionally well-written philosophy of religion... " —Mentalities "... a most impressive phenomenology of religion... a splendid achievement... " —The Reformed Theological Review "... challenging to scholars... interesting to general audiences." —International Journal for Philosophy of Religion "... equal in clarity of thought and comprehensiveness of scope.... profoundly original." —The Reformed Journal "Challenging and thought-provoking, this makes a (...) fine... textbook in the philosophy of religion." —Religious Studies Review "... its virtues as a textbook in phenomenology or philosophy of religion are extraordinary." —Faith and Philosophy Examples from the writings of Kierkegaard, Freud, Heidegger, Dostoyevsky, Nietzsche, and Tolstoi illuminate Westphal’s thesis that guilt and death are the central problems of human existence. (shrink)

"This fairly small book must take its place as the best introductorystudy of Hegel's Phenomenology available." -- Philosophy and PhenomenologicalResearch "Westphal's book is a comprehensive guide to theargument of the entire phenomenology.... will repay close study by seriousundergraduate and graduate students of philosophy." --Choice This detailed interpretation of Hegel's Phenomenology ofSpirit seeks to show that the unity of this classic work may be found in theintegration of its transcendental and sociological-historical themes.

The kind of phenomenology that can be useful to theology will be a hermeneutical phenomenology, one that takes us beyond the Cartesian/Husserlian ideal of presuppositionless intuition. It will also be a phenomenology of inverse intentionality, one in which the constituting subject is constituted by the look and the voice of another. In light of these suggestions, the phenomenology of Jean-Luc Marion is defended against three critiques, namely that it compromises the boundary between phenomenology and theology, that the theology it serves (...) is a bad one to boot, and that it has an inadequate account of the subject. At the heart of this defense is Marion's clear distinction between phenomenology as a description of possible experience, and theology as the claim that a certain kind of experience, namely revelation or epiphany, is not merely actual but veridical. Phenomenology says, If revelation occurs it will be in the form of a saturated phenomenon. Theology says, for example, the burning bush was an epiphany, or Jesus Christ is a revelation. The attentive reader should have no trouble distinguishing Marion's phenomenological analyses, which should be persuasive to believer and unbeliever alike, from his theological claims. Marion's account of the subject falls under the heading of inverse intentionality, and there are hints that vision is aufgehoben in the voice. The seer is first of all the one seen, but above all the one addressed, called forth into response-able being. (shrink)

This detailed interpretation of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit seeks to show that the Unity of this classic work may be found in the integration of its transcendental and sociological-historical themes. Merold Westphal argues that the key to this unity lies in Hegel's radical discovery that transcendental subjectivity has a social history and that absolute knowledge is a historically conditioned and essentially collective or social event. His distinctive interpretation emphasizes the relevance of Hegel's Phenomenology to contemporary philosophical issues.

Westphal shows us that Kierkegaard's philosophy makes an important contribution to what we now call the 'critique of ideology,' embracing both political and sociological concerns, and squarely based upon as affirmation of human reason-a reason that is fully aware of its own nature, neither shirking its responsibilities nor overstepping its capacities. For those who would like to get beyond the myth of Kierkegaard as an apostle of the 'solitary self,' Kierkegaard's Critique of Reason and Society is just the book to (...) read. -Stephen N. Dunning, University of Pennsylvania. (shrink)

"This volume represents a fine assessment of the continuing applicability of Kierkegaard’s thought for the 21st century."—The Reader’s Review "Matustík and Westphal have set some agile minds to the task of drawing out the threads of Kierkegaard’s influence on postmodern and contemporary philosophy, from gender to politics and from Buber to Derrida." —Choice "... Usefully and effectively establishes Kierkegaard as a living presence in contemporary thought. It will help students of Kierkegaard attend to aspects of his thought that have eluded (...) their attention, and it will challenge those engaged with contemporary continental philosophy not to shelter themselves from the provocations and interrogrations still uncomfortably pressing in Kierkegaard’s writings." —International Philosophical Quarterly "The standard of the essays and the calibre of the contributors are uniformly high. This is indeed one of the better collections relating to Kierkegaard published in recent years, and should do much to extend discussion of his work..." —Modern Believing "... a text of immense significance and value.... As a research tool it will surely prove indispensable." —Søren Kierkegaard Newsletter "It will be a helpful supplementary areading for teaching... the contemporary readings of Kierkegaard introduced here continue to reveal new and more exciting depths to his extraordinary philosophy." —Teaching Philosophy These essays engage Kierkegaard in conversation with critical social theory and postmodern thought. Covering a diversity of themes, this collection still reflects consensus—Kierkegaard is to be taken seriously as a philosopher at the turn of the twenty-first century. (shrink)

"These essays engage Kierkegaard in conversation with critical social theory and postmodern thought. Covering a diversity of themes, this collection still reflects consensus--Kierkegaard is to be taken seriously as a philosopher at the turn of the twenty-first century."--Amazon.com.

This book invites comparison with Emil Fackenheim’s The Religious Dimension in Hegel’s Thought in that it seeks to illuminate the whole of Hegel’s thought from the perspective of a dimension which is taken to be central. In this case it is the political dimension and reference to the whole of Hegel has both a diachronic and a synchronic sense. For the two central theses of the book are that Hegel’s development is the key to understanding his mature system and that (...) his metaphysics is crucial for an understanding of his political thought. While we are not told just what to understand by Hegel’s metaphysics, in practice it seems to mean not just the logic, which Hegel himself identifies with metaphysics, but the whole of the system other than the theory of objective spirit. For it is argued in various places that the logic, the philosophy of nature, the theory of subjective, and the theory of absolute spirit, especially the philosophy of history and of religion form the context in which alone Hegel’s political thought is properly understood. Thus it is the whole of Hegel’s system as well as the whole of his development which stand in the relation of reciprocal illumination to his political theory. (shrink)

Highlights the intersection of Hegel's thinking on politics, religion, and knowledge, which, claims Westphal (philosophy, Fordham U.), addresses better than any modern thinker, the essential dilemma that a religious society tends to be ...

The kind of phenomenology that can be useful to theology will be a hermeneutical phenomenology, one that takes us beyond the Cartesian/Husserlian ideal of presuppositionless intuition. It will also be a phenomenology of inverse intentionality, one in which the constituting subject is constituted by the look and the voice of another. In light of these suggestions, the phenomenology of Jean-Luc Marion is defended against three critiques, namely that it compromises the boundary between phenomenology and theology, that the theology it serves (...) is a bad one to boot, and that it has an inadequate account of the subject. At the heart of this defense is Marion's clear distinction between phenomenology as a description of possible experience, and theology as the claim that a certain kind of experience, namely revelation or epiphany, is not merely actual but veridical. Phenomenology says, If revelation occurs it will be in the form of a saturated phenomenon. Theology says, for example, the burning bush was an epiphany, or Jesus Christ is a revelation. The attentive reader should have no trouble distinguishing Marion's phenomenological analyses, which should be persuasive to believer and unbeliever alike, from his theological claims. Marion's account of the subject falls under the heading of inverse intentionality, and there are hints that vision is aufgehoben in the voice. The seer is first of all the one seen, but above all the one addressed, called forth into response-able being. (shrink)

Two reasons are given for speaking of “reason” even where Kierkegaard’s pseudonym, Climacus, speaks of “understanding.” First, we are dealing with a significant contribution to a centuries-old discussion of an issue that goes by the name of “faith and reason.” Second, whereas Kant and Hegel sharply distinguish mere understanding from reason, no such distinction is at work in Kierkegaard’s text. At issue is the quite different distinction of unaided human reason and divine revelation. It is not just any notion of (...) reason that is the target of Kierkegaard’s critique, but an autonomous reason, independent of revelation, that claims hegemony over biblical faith in both its popular and academic forms. This hegemony expresses itself in both outright rejection of and radical reinterpretation of elements of biblical faith. (shrink)

Religious faith is often critiqued as irrational either because its beliefs do not rise to the level of knowledge as defined by some philosophical theory or be­cause it rests on emotion rather than knowledge. Or both. Kierkegaard helps us to see how these arguments rest on a misunderstanding of all three terms: faith, reason, and emotion.

For Heidegger, onto-theology is the use of abstract, impersonal categories under the principle of sufficient reason that has one goal and two results. The goal is to make God fully intelligible to human understanding. The results are the disappearance of mystery from our understanding of God and the loss of any religious significance for the “God” that results. I argue that Aquinas is not guilty of onto-theology because his use of abstract, impersonal categories is subsumed (aufgehoben, teleologically suspended) in his (...) use of personal categories and because his doctrine of analogy retains mystery in our understanding of God. (shrink)

The introduction by Merold Westphal sets the scene: "Two books, two visions of philosophy, two friends and sometimes colleagues...". Modernity and Its Discontents is a debate between Caputo and Marsh in which each upheld their opposing philosphical positions by critical modernism and post-modernism. The book opens with a critique of each debater of the other's previous work. With its passionate point-counterpoint form, the book recalls the philosphical dialogues of classical times, but the writing style remains lucid and uncluttered. Taking the (...) failure of Englightenment ideals as their common ground, the debaters challenge each other's ideas on the nature of post-foundationalist critique. At the core of the argument lies the timely question of the role that each person can play in creating a truly humane society. (shrink)

Against two recent critiques, I defend my thesis that such later writings of Kierkegaard as Works of Love and Practice in Christianity introduce an understanding of Christianity that I call Religiousness C, into which Religiousness B as presented in ConcludingUnscientific Postscript is teleologically suspended. For Religiousness B, Christ is the Paradox to be believed, while for Religiousness C, Christ is the Pattern, Paradigm, or Prototype to be imitated. In the former case, the offense to be overcome in becoming a Christian (...) concerns the metaphysics and epistemology of the Incarnation. In the latter case, the offense involves the ethics and politics of the Incarnation. I argue that this Aufhebung is Hegelian only in a formal sense and, so far from compromising Kierkegaard’s critique of Hegel, actually intensifies it. (shrink)

A triple sampling of the rich diversity of philosophical reflection on religion and on the relation of philosophy to religion within “continental” traditions. The first part explores three accounts of the relation of phenomenology to religion as presented by Heidegger, Ricoeur, and Marion. The second part explores Heidegger’s critique of metaphysics in its onto-theological constitution with detailed attention to just what he means by this notion and with special reference to the religious and theological motivations one might have for wanting (...) to avoid onto-theological thinking. The third part explores the renewed interest in negative theology that revolves around the conversation between Derrida and Marion. (shrink)

Hegel introduced the Phenomenology of Mind as a work on the problem of knowledge. In the first chapter, entitled “Sense Certainty, or the This and Meaning,” he concluded that knowledge cannot consist of an immediate awareness of particulars ). The tradition discusses sense certainty in terms of this failure of immediate knowledge without, however, specifically addressing the problem of reference. Yet reference is distinct from knowledge in the sense that while there can be no knowledge of objects without reference, there (...) may be reference without knowledge. If that is the case, then the failure of immediate knowledge does not entitle us to conclude anything about the success or failure of reference. It is not surprising, then, that a few scholars have begun to examine sense certainty primarily as a thesis about reference. (shrink)

Continental philosophy of religion often takes place within the horizons of phenomenology. A central theme of this tradition is the correlation, in one form or another, of intentional act and intentional object, the “object” as given to or taken by the subject. But in dialectical tension with this theme is the notion of inverted intentionality in which the arrows of meaning bestowing intentionality come toward the self rather than emanating from the self. This theme is developed by Sartre, Levinas, and (...) Derrida, among others. Since each of these is in some fashion an atheist, it is surprising but important that their reflections on what it means to be seen or to be addressed keep turning toward the question of God. This suggests that the basic concept is important for the philosophy of religion, at least in monotheistic contexts. (shrink)

SUMMARYSince the theme of sacrifice as presented in Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling is a major focus of Levinas' critique of Kierkegaard, their debate, so to speak, is pertinent to the theme of sacrifice and the foundation of culture. But the central theme of Fear and Trembling is faith; so first of all a brief summary of its account of biblical faith is given. Then, in the light of this account of faith, the question of sacrifice is addressed, along with Levinas' (...) critique. Levinas is a surprisingly bad reader of Kierkegaard, but the conflict between the two leaves us with the question of how to think about sacrifice. So an account of sacrifice in biblical context and in tune with the Abraham story is given. It is then suggested that biblical sacrifice is not so much about the founding of culture, at least if such founding is conceived as a human act, but a divine disruption of every culture. That is what Kierkegaard's teleological suspension of the ethical is about in any case. (shrink)

According to the article, the references of Emmanuel Levinas to Kierkegaard are varied. Indeed, there are times in which Levinas seems to misunderstand or completely ignore important writings of the Danish thinker. There are also times in which Levinas understands Kierkegaard well enough to see quite precisely where they disagree. And yet there are also times in which Levinas raises important objections that call for a response from Kierkegaard. Accordingly, the primary goal of this essay is to separate the moments (...) of genuine engagement from those in which Levinas' comments miss their target altogether. /// As referências que Emmanuel Levinas faz à obra de Kierkegaard são de diverso tipo. Por vezes, ele parece não compreender ou completamente ignorar escritos importantes do pensador dinamarquês. Outras vezes, porém, ele dá a impressão de compreender Kierkegaard suficientemente bem até ao ponto de precisar exactamente quais os pontos de desacordo entre os dois. Mas há ainda um outro registo, aquele em que Levinas levanta importantes objecções a Kierkegaard, exigindo deste uma resposta. O principal objectivo do artigo é, assim, separar os momentos de compromisso genuíno daqueles em que os comentários de Levinas pura e simplesmente parecem falhar o seu alvo. (shrink)

The canon is a flexible, normative fact. I speak here of the philosophical canon, though I believe only minor adjustments would be needed to extend the argument to the literary canon.

Early in Of Grammatology, Derrida tells us that he is an Hegelian. Of sorts.

This volume provides a remarkable collection of materials that should prove useful to scholars with a variety of interests. The major item is the first translation into any language of Hermann Friedrich Wilhelm Hinrichs’ Religion in its Internal Relation to Systematic Knowledge. Though it can be claimed that Hinrichs is the first Hegelian and the founder of the Hegelian Right, this work would have fallen into even more total obscurity than it has had it not been accompanied by a Foreword (...) from Hegel himself. Naturally the present volume includes that Foreword, both as the third translation of the text and as the first critical edition of the German text. Because both Hegel and Hinrichs level a critique of the theology of feeling published in the first edition of Schleiermacher’s Glaubenslehre and because the English translation is of the much revised second edition, the relevant sections of Schleiermacher’s first edition are included in translation. (shrink)

The atheism of Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud can be called the atheism of suspicion in contrast to evidential atheism. For while the latter focuses on the truth of religious beliefs, the former inquires into their function. It asks, in other words, what motives lead to belief and what practices are compatible with and authorised by religious beliefs. The primary response of Christian philosophers should not be to refute these analyses, since they are all too often true and, moreover, very much (...) of the same sort as found in the religion critique of Jesus and the prophets. Rather, our primary response should be to show the Christian community, including ourselves, how even the truth can become an instrument of self-interest. In this way the atheism of suspicion can provide helpful conceptual tools for personal and corporate self-examination. (shrink)

The recent appearance of a new translation of The Encyclopedia Logic has provided me with a welcome opportunity to return once again to the study of this little treasure. I shall not challenge the judgment that one must give pride of place to Hegel’s Science of Logic in seeking to understand his account of das Logische. But my heart belongs to the “Lesser Logic,” and I will not challenge its love in the name of that judgment. If only Kant’s “Lesser (...) First Critique” had been half as successful as this jewel! However “politically correct” it may be to bow and scrape before “the full argument,” my heart and I know that we are not alone. Who knows, we may even be the silent majority! (shrink)