Broken Tools
June 24th, 2006, search relatedRelated posts :: broken tools :: Broken Tools :: Broken Tools :: Broken Tools
Tags: religion
>>From: allen scult
>
>>Religion finds its true nature only in philosophy, which knows
>>enough to investigate religion not in its particular effects, not
>>in its particular embodiments, but in its being–religion as as
>>such. Religion gives itself to thinking as what it is, as how it
>>is what it is.
>
Isn’t that assumption philosophically equivalent to Husserl’s
assumption that equipment finds its true nature only in scientific
analysis, that it gives itself to theoria as what it is? And
according to Heidegger, doesn’t that end up depriving it of its very
equipmentality? Similarly, couldn’t someone (me!) argue that
philosophy deprives faith of its faith-full-ness, precisely by
depriving it of its particular effects? If religion shows itself most
“as what it is” in abstraction from “its particular effects,” then
isn’t this just philosophy of religion, not religion (just as
equipment becomes “things that we use” to theoria)?
Hi Anthony,
Just by the way, I think Husserl made too much of science. Perfectly
understandable given the situation.
As for religion, like, philosophy, it’s imcomparable. Religion IS,
and IS like nothing else is.The fact that it is, is what makes it so
well suited to phenomenological investigation. As Heidegger said by
way of properly orienting his students to the course, religion is as
real as the train station in Freiburg. . .not just any train station,
mind you, but that very train station. Go, touch it. Then come back
and we’ll talk about religion.
You’re confusing faith with science (about which Heidegger was
right). Faith by its very nature is independent of contingencies,
especially effects. It takes no object. It’s totally useless, to
say nothing of baseless. I think Heidegger’s essay on theology and
phenomenology makes the distinction between philosophy (of religion)
and religion quite sharply, perhaps too sharply. I think philosophy
and religion desire each other. They are separate and must remain
so. The idea is to think them as close as possible one to the other,
without either being absorbed into the other. Like some other games
we’ve all enjoyed.
By the way Pete, you’re right. My description was over-wrought, but
I was trying to get something started.
Regards,
Allen
