{"title":"Essentiality and Responsibility in Times of Crises Anthropodicy beyond the Limits of Reason Alone","authors":"Simeon Theojaya","doi":"10.1163/15697320-20220054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed global dependency on essential workers and the susceptibility of social dynamics. Essentiality is a haunting primordial issue because it is still defined by socio-economic functions rather than people’s worth as human beings. For Marx, Feuerbach’s concept of homo deus is an inversion of Christian anthropology which ends as a mere ‘theological nicety’. In response to Marx, I hold that religion is an efficient ideology that transcends abstraction. The current crisis shows that religion’s problem lies elsewhere: it can be counterproductive to social causes and hardly fit inside the limits of reason. Elaborating Lévinas’s concern over theodicy, I appeal to anthropodicy as an impetus for religious ideology to embrace vulnerability and nurture solidarity. After Lévinas, I reinterpret essentiality as a responsibility that surpasses our rationality. With the alignment of essentiality and responsibility, anthropodicy can support religious ideology to welcome the vulnerable others and encourage social responsibility.","PeriodicalId":43324,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Public Theology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Public Theology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15697320-20220054","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed global dependency on essential workers and the susceptibility of social dynamics. Essentiality is a haunting primordial issue because it is still defined by socio-economic functions rather than people’s worth as human beings. For Marx, Feuerbach’s concept of homo deus is an inversion of Christian anthropology which ends as a mere ‘theological nicety’. In response to Marx, I hold that religion is an efficient ideology that transcends abstraction. The current crisis shows that religion’s problem lies elsewhere: it can be counterproductive to social causes and hardly fit inside the limits of reason. Elaborating Lévinas’s concern over theodicy, I appeal to anthropodicy as an impetus for religious ideology to embrace vulnerability and nurture solidarity. After Lévinas, I reinterpret essentiality as a responsibility that surpasses our rationality. With the alignment of essentiality and responsibility, anthropodicy can support religious ideology to welcome the vulnerable others and encourage social responsibility.