The following is an examination of two possible interpretations of the meaning of the “existence” of God. By using two different Danishterms—the word existence (Existents) and the concept “coming to be” (Tilværelse)—found in Kierkegaard’s writing, I hope to show that two very different theological outcomes arise depending upon which idea or term is used. Moreover, I posit which of these twooutcomes is closer in nature to the more famously used German term Dasein.

Hatred As A Sign Of Life. We've seen a lot of this in the last year, in the last four to five years, in fact. So much hatred that people were willing to risk their lives rather than wear a mask to protect themselves (and others) from COVID-19.So much hatred against them... against the other... against those others.If nothing else, this past year made strikingly visible the divides that exist in the United States, and yet the nature of the major (...) divide remained unspoken.It is not race; it is socioeconomic class.Race is the smoke and mirrors used to hide the class disparities that exist. The truth is really very simple. For every black, urban member of the poor, there are several white members of the rural poor who are wondering why they are not getting as much attention. Members of the (predominantly white and middle- to upper-class) intelligentsia are so focused on not being racist that they don't see how prejudiced they are against the poor. We see a black student and think “Poor kid! All the prejudice he or she has faced!” We fail to see the poverty in a white face. We also fail to see wealth in a black face.I once had a black student come to my office in a fury. A professor had told her that she wrote well, “all things considered,” which she took to mean that she wrote very well for a black student. I believe her interpretation was correct. Why was she upset? Because both of her parents were lawyers. Of course, she knew how to write! One assumes that all children of lawyers know how to write—regardless of skin color. Apparently, there was doubt about the existence of black lawyers.Furthermore, we shouldn't talk about white privilege. As many whites will point out, they're white, but they're not privileged. This term is part of why Clinton failed so miserably in 2016. The truth is that it's wealth privilege. You may disagree with this. But it's the inability to see the suffering of poverty in rural white communities that led to the creation of Trump supporters. I know that middle-class and wealthy people (black and white) also supported Trump, but not for the same reasons as the white rural poor. The white rural poor had had enough.Moreover, when you make the comparison by the right measures, you find that blacks and whites of the same socioeconomic class have the same rates of college graduation, the same rates of employment, and the same leverage of wealth and class. A black kid from West Philly has nothing in common with the black wealthy elites that summer at Oaks Bluff on Martha's Vineyard. That black kid has more in common with the poor “white trash” kid from Alabama who also can't afford the opportunity costs that go with attending college.Until we own up to the problem of socioeconomic class, we will face continued trouble in the United States. Let us be honest with ourselves. The “problem of race” in the United States is about economics. The notion of reparations is about money. The idea that most black families have not acquired as much wealth as some white families is a matter of money. It's not a “problem of race” per se. It's the problem that your skin color may be making it hard for you to make money. Well and good. But being white does not ipso facto help you to make money either. I hate to break it to people, but not all white people are wealthy. White privilege gives off the impression that they are.For every force, there is an equal and opposite force. For every BLM protester, there is somewhere in the hinterland a Proud Boy. For every window smashed by looters, evidence increased that the Capitol needed to be retaken from the powers that be because they were leading our nation astray. For every black person shot illegitimately by police, the white rural poor could name a white person shot for equally illegitimate reasons. I've often wondered why the black urban poor get so much attention. I think it's because they are closer to the TV stations that create our reality.Hatred is usually a product of fear. If whites fear blacks, it's because they fear that blacks will do unto them what they did unto blacks. But they are also jealous—another primeval source of hatred. Why is their poverty and pain being ignored? Was it only made visible by the opioid epidemic?Johnson's “War on Poverty” was never won. Urban renewal renewed nothing. But race is the cause célèbre du jour. Perhaps by this time next year, it won't be. But the fear will remain. Fear of the Other. Jealousy of the Other. Hatred toward the Other. Such hatred can turn into violence at the drop of a hat. Ask the Russians. Ask the Chinese. We don't want a race war, if only because blacks are easier to pick out in a crowd than Jews. It would end very badly. If you want to prevent the race war, solve the poverty problem. Then peace and justice can—even if only in a limited sense—prevail. This is a better kind of life than one based on hatred. We must ignore the dog whistle of race. Instead, we must focus on the numbing reality of poverty. Everybody's poverty. (shrink)

Walker Percy's use of the terms Umwelt and Welt as well as his separation of events into dyadic and triadic ones, where the latter involve human beings, is brought to bear on the relationship between science and religion with the upshot being that science is not equipped to really understand or explain triadic entities.

Traditionally, Ortega y Gasset has fallen between the cracks of philosophical categorization. He is not an existentialist; neither is he a phenomenologist nor a pragmatist. Yet his major claim, "I am I and my circum-stance" both bridges and transcends these categories. It is the intent of Rodríguez Huéscar's book to show that this particular claim, and the metaphysical system Ortega developed from it, is Ortega's chief innovation in addressing what was once perceived as the central crisis of modern philosophy: the (...) need to overcome idealism. Rodríguez Huéscar, moving effortlessly through Ortega y Gasset's corpus, shows that Ortega's critique is not merely of the idealism per se which has dominated modern philosophy since Descartes but also of realism itself inasmuch as realism is viewed as a mutually exclusive antithesis of idealism. From Rodríguez Huéscar's perspective, Ortega is attempting to establish a new way of thinking that goes beyond the traditional dichotomies of abstract philosophy. Ortega's project is an attempt to create a metaphysics based on a radical, unmediated, lived reality. Such a reality is something presented or given to us, and it is also something upon which we must act. This is the sum of human existence, and for this reason one is in toto simply one's self and one's circumstance. For Ortega, this totality of human existence is, for any particular human, his or her life--an absolute living product of reason and history. In his Metaphysical Innovation, Rodríguez Huéscar takes two approaches to elucidating Ortega's system of living, radical, historical metaphysics. The first approach is devoted to a three-part exposition of Ortega's critique of idealism, including a critique of phenomenological philosophy as representative of the most recent instantiation of idealism. The remainder of the book is an outline of Ortega's project in view of his attempt to overcome idealism. As such, Rodríguez Huéscar presents and explains the most salient features of Ortega's metaphysics such as "absolute event," the act of becoming present, circum-stance, and vocation in a clear and concise manner. This portion of the book could stand alone as an excellent introduction to Ortega's project to those who are only moderately familiar with his work. It is also at this juncture that the excellence of the translation becomes apparent. García-Gómez's subtle use of editing make this translation not only a pleasure to read but of great help to the newcomer in need of placing Ortega y Gasset in his historical and philosophical context.--Stacey Ake, University Park, Pennsylvania. (shrink)