It Takes Two to Make a Thing Go Right: Phenomenology, Theology, and Janicaud

IF 0.3 0 RELIGION Open Theology Pub Date : 2021-12-21 DOI:10.1515/opth-2020-0190
A. Bowen, J. Simmons
{"title":"It Takes Two to Make a Thing Go Right: Phenomenology, Theology, and Janicaud","authors":"A. Bowen, J. Simmons","doi":"10.1515/opth-2020-0190","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In his influential essay, “The Theological Turn of French Phenomenology,” Dominique Janicaud suggests that phenomenology and theology “make two.” On the thirtieth anniversary of that essay, here we consider some of the main lines of response that have been offered to his account. We suggest that there are three general approaches that have been the most prominent: indifferentism, integrationism, and pluralism. The indifferentists implicitly suggest that Janicaud is right about the divide between phenomenology and theology. The integrationists think that Janicaud is wrong about the divide because theology and philosophy are unable to be strictly distinguished. The pluralists suggest that Janicaud is right about the division, but wrong about how it works. For pluralists, philosophy and theology are distinguished due to the immediate evidential authorities that operate in the two discourses. As such, phenomenological theology and phenomenological philosophy of religion are importantly different. Defending pluralism as the best of the three options, we argue that it avoids the potential reductionism that is present in the other two. We conclude by turning to the ways in which, precisely because phenomenological philosophy and phenomenological theology make two, they can both benefit from being put into robust engagement with the other.","PeriodicalId":42436,"journal":{"name":"Open Theology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Theology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/opth-2020-0190","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract In his influential essay, “The Theological Turn of French Phenomenology,” Dominique Janicaud suggests that phenomenology and theology “make two.” On the thirtieth anniversary of that essay, here we consider some of the main lines of response that have been offered to his account. We suggest that there are three general approaches that have been the most prominent: indifferentism, integrationism, and pluralism. The indifferentists implicitly suggest that Janicaud is right about the divide between phenomenology and theology. The integrationists think that Janicaud is wrong about the divide because theology and philosophy are unable to be strictly distinguished. The pluralists suggest that Janicaud is right about the division, but wrong about how it works. For pluralists, philosophy and theology are distinguished due to the immediate evidential authorities that operate in the two discourses. As such, phenomenological theology and phenomenological philosophy of religion are importantly different. Defending pluralism as the best of the three options, we argue that it avoids the potential reductionism that is present in the other two. We conclude by turning to the ways in which, precisely because phenomenological philosophy and phenomenological theology make two, they can both benefit from being put into robust engagement with the other.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
两个人才能把一件事做好:现象学、神学和贾尼考德
多米尼克•雅尼科在其颇有影响的论文《法国现象学的神学转向》中指出,现象学和神学“一分为二”。在这篇文章发表三十周年之际,我们在这里考虑一些对他的叙述作出回应的主要路线。我们认为有三种最突出的一般方法:冷漠主义、整合主义和多元主义。冷漠论者暗示Janicaud关于现象学和神学的区分是正确的。整合论者认为贾尼考德关于分裂的观点是错误的,因为神学和哲学无法严格区分。多元主义者认为,贾尼考德关于分裂的观点是正确的,但对其运作方式的看法是错误的。对于多元主义者来说,哲学和神学是有区别的,因为它们在两种话语中都有直接的证据权威。因此,现象学神学与现象学宗教哲学有着重要的区别。我们认为多元主义是三种选择中最好的一种,它避免了其他两种选择中存在的潜在还原论。我们的结论是,正是因为现象学哲学和现象学神学是两种,所以它们都可以从与对方的紧密接触中受益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Open Theology
Open Theology RELIGION-
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Open Theology is an international Open Access, peer-reviewed academic journal that welcomes contributions written in English addressing religion in its various forms and aspects: historical, theological, sociological, psychological, and other. The journal encompasses all major disciplines of Theology and Religious Studies, presenting doctrine, history, organization and everyday life of various types of religious groups and the relations between them. We publish articles from the field of Theology as well as Philosophy, Sociology and Psychology of Religion and also dialogue between Religion and Science. The Open Theology does not present views of any particular theological school nor of a particular religious organization. The contributions are written by researchers who represent different religious views. The authors present their research concerning the old religious traditions as well as new religious movements. The aim of the journal is to promote an international and interdisciplinary dialogue in the field of Theology and Religious Studies. The journal seeks also to provide researchers, pastors and other interested persons with the fruits of academic studies.
期刊最新文献
“Teachers of Good Things”: Origen on Women as Teachers Constructive After Systematic? On Doing Theology in South Africa Today Blood Lines: Biopolitics, Patriarchy, Myth A Militant Bride: Gender-Loaded Metaphors in Jerome’s Writings to Ascetic Men and Women “The Remedy for a World Without Transcendence”: Georges Bataille on Sacrifice and the Theology of Transgression
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1