Eric Voegelin and Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy provide an interesting and important contrast in their Augustinian diagnoses of modernity and the role of revolution and faith in salvation in history. For Eric Voegelin the desolation of modern humanity springs from its unreal elevation of the self – its Gnostic inheritance – and its immanentization of God and the eschaton into history and progress. In keeping with this is the moderns’ failure to appreciate that the symbolic order required for a fulfilling human community (...) and experience relies upon the necessity of maintaining God as a beyond in relation to society, man and world. Rosenstock-Huessy is also concerned that the failure of the moderns to understand the sign and significance of God is disastrous. And like Voegelin he is deeply opposed to modern Gnosticism and the pathologies that emerge from it, but Rosenstock-Huessy is also interested in something that is not Voegelin’s primary concern – mainly the role of providence in history. (shrink)
Which Spirit to Serve? The Stirring of the Living Loving God -- The Basis of the New Speech Thinking -- Grammatical Organons in Rosenstock-Huessy and Rosenzweig -- On God as an Indissoluble Name and an Indispensable Pole of the Real -- The Sundered and the Whole: Rosenzweig's Distinction between Pagans and the Elect -- Rosenstock-Huessy's Incarnatory Christianity -- The Ages of the Church and Redemption through Revolution -- The Modern Humanistic Turn of the French Revolution in Rosenstock-Huessy -- Beyond the (...) Idol of the Nation, Part 1: Rosenstock-huessy in the Aftermath of the Great War -- Beyond the Idol of the Nation, Part 2: Rosenzweig -- Beyond the Idol of Art, Part 1: Rosenzweig and the Role of Art in Redemption -- Beyond the Idol of Art, Part 2: Rosenstock-Huessy and Art in Service to Revolution -- Beyond the Prophets of Modernity: Rosenstock-Huessy and Rosenzweig on Nietzsche and Marx -- Rosenzweig on Why Allah Is Not Yahweh, the Loving, Revealing, Redeeming God -- Rosenstock-Huessy on Islam, Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism -- Pagan, Jew, Christian -- or, Three Lives in One Love. (shrink)
This article examines the importance of Calvinism in producing the public/political “mind-set” of the United States, and how, after the Second World War, the export of this mind-set was as significant as the export of democracy, rock-’n’-roll, jeans, and Coca-Cola. It discusses the historical legacy and evolution of Calvinism from a civil religion to a religion of civility, and how the form and manner of Calvinist thinking—more specifically its ethic and aesthetic—has persisted in a secular manner so that much that (...) Calvin would have found damnable is now intrinsic to the “religion of civility.” It then concludes that the central principles and practices of this religion of civility have had success within nations already “Christianized” but, perhaps understandably, not outside of that sphere. (shrink)
Written by leading international scholars, this interesting book traces how our modern understanding of faith and reason has evolved. It provides an invaluable guide to the history of modern philosophical theology and clearly identifies why the relationship between faith and reason is of such social and philosophical importance today.
In his Sociology, Rosenstock-Huessy had argued that the translatio imperii was an important, but forgotten, Medieval Christian formulation which grasped that with the Church the aspiration of empire had entered onto a new historical path; the extinction that is the fate of all earthly empires need not be repeated if the powers of human endeavour are incorporated within a spiritual body (Augustine’s ‘heavenly city’) for whom ‘love is stronger than death’. This radical faith in the future has been retained in, (...) and is indeed intrinsic to, the secular Western revolutionary consciousness. This faith also provides the discipline of History with an eschatological mission far beyond merely chronicling of the past. History inevitably shares the same theological and philosophical roots not only of Europe but the entire world. For the ‘world’ we now inhabit is what it is because of the outgrowths of revolutions and world wars that were initiated in Europe. (shrink)
Drawing heavily upon Habermas, Welmer, Arendt, Foucault, Castoriadis, the Budapest school, and Alain Touraine, John Rundell has undertaken a multilayered analysis of Kant, Hegel, and Marx. Not only does Rundell seek to reconstruct the major contribution to social theory by each of the three thinkers and to provide “a thematization of their latent and lingering insights concerning the self-constitution of modernity,” he also attempts an analysis of the formal theoretical constraints which led each of them to circumvent and suppress valuable (...) insights for a social theory of modernity. Rundell wishes to conduct his analysis “not only from within the structure of their own theorizing, but also from the vantage point of the cultural self-understanding of the modern epoch”. He too must attempt a theory of modernity and the onus is on him to survey the assumptions that guide his own theorizing. The book, then, is partly a critical contribution to the history of social theory and partly an attempt at a more comprehensive social theory. It is in its fulfillment of the former ambition that the book is more satisfying. (shrink)
Five years ago, a new three volume edition of Eugen Rosenstock- Huessy In the Cross of Reality: A Post-Goethean Sociology appeared in Germany. As with the two prior editions of the work it met with almost no critical response. This is perhaps not surprising - and it barely mentions any other sociologists, its approach is highly idiosyncratic, it is as much anthropology and history as it is sociology. Indeed, the second and third volumes mainly focus on the social formations of (...) antiquity, and the role of Christianity and the messianic revolutions of the last millennium in creating a universal history. In this paper I take the relationship between speech, time and suffering as the key to Rosenstock-Huessy?s argument for why a theoretical grasp of Christianity as a social power is so important for social theory, and why he sees Sociology as a post-Christian form of knowledge. I also make the case for why Rosenstock-Huessy is an interesting and important social theorist. nema. (shrink)
This paper contrasts the apophatic tradition, which has been reinvigorated by the post-structural emphasis upon ‘unsaying,’ with the dialogical or speech thinking tradition represented by the Jewish philosopher, Franz Rosenzweig, and his inimical dialogical partner, teacher and friend, Jewish apostate and post-Nietzchean Christian thinker, Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy. I trace the tradition back to Hegel’s critique of the dominant metaphysical dualism of his age, while arguing that the key weakness in Hegel’s argument is his privileging of reason above speech, and that his (...) contemporary J.G. Hamman understanding of the role speech in world-making had already supplied the supplement and direction that would be developed by Rosenzweig and Rosenstock-Huessy. I argue that although the apophatic accentuates certain dimensions of our experience that are not insignificant, when those dimensions occlude the sociality of religious practice and narrative, reality becomes mystified, as our more mundane reality, which is the very reality we live and die within, is relegated to something secondary and relatively unimportant, in extreme cases a kind of unreality. (shrink)