比较“宗教”与“非宗教”:对现代性的批判

IF 0.5 2区 哲学 0 RELIGION Method & Theory in the Study of Religion Pub Date : 2020-06-10 DOI:10.1163/15700682-12341487
M. Horii
{"title":"比较“宗教”与“非宗教”:对现代性的批判","authors":"M. Horii","doi":"10.1163/15700682-12341487","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThis essay starts with reference to “grapefruits” in Oliver Freiberger’s (2019) Considering Comparison and to “apples” and “oranges” in Bruce Lincoln’s (2018) Apples and Oranges: Explorations In, On and With Comparison. It disagrees with Freiberger when he compares “grapefruits” with some generic categories in Religious Studies including “shrine.” The category of “shrine” resembles more “fruits,” for example, because two shrines could have completely different genealogies, just like apples and oranges, but still belong to the same generic category. Then, the essay compares the categories of “religion” and “tree.” The boundary between “religion” and “nonreligion” is as arbitrary as that of “tree” and “non-tree.” At the same time, “religion” and “nonreligion” share common characteristics just like “tree” and “non-tree” do. Given this, it concludes with the suggestion that, when the “religiousness” of ostensibly “nonreligious” modernity is articulated, the category “religion” functions as a useful rhetorical tool to subvert modernity’s claim of universality and factual reality.","PeriodicalId":44982,"journal":{"name":"Method & Theory in the Study of Religion","volume":"32 1","pages":"455-463"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15700682-12341487","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing ‘Religion’ and ‘Nonreligion’: towards a Critique of Modernity\",\"authors\":\"M. Horii\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15700682-12341487\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nThis essay starts with reference to “grapefruits” in Oliver Freiberger’s (2019) Considering Comparison and to “apples” and “oranges” in Bruce Lincoln’s (2018) Apples and Oranges: Explorations In, On and With Comparison. It disagrees with Freiberger when he compares “grapefruits” with some generic categories in Religious Studies including “shrine.” The category of “shrine” resembles more “fruits,” for example, because two shrines could have completely different genealogies, just like apples and oranges, but still belong to the same generic category. Then, the essay compares the categories of “religion” and “tree.” The boundary between “religion” and “nonreligion” is as arbitrary as that of “tree” and “non-tree.” At the same time, “religion” and “nonreligion” share common characteristics just like “tree” and “non-tree” do. Given this, it concludes with the suggestion that, when the “religiousness” of ostensibly “nonreligious” modernity is articulated, the category “religion” functions as a useful rhetorical tool to subvert modernity’s claim of universality and factual reality.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44982,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Method & Theory in the Study of Religion\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"455-463\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15700682-12341487\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Method & Theory in the Study of Religion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15700682-12341487\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Method & Theory in the Study of Religion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15700682-12341487","RegionNum":2,"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

摘要

本文首先参考了奥利弗·弗赖伯格(Oliver Freiberger)(2019)的《考虑比较》(Thinking Comparison)中的“葡萄柚”,以及布鲁斯·林肯(Bruce Lincoln)(2018)的《苹果和橙子:比较中的探索》(apples and oranges:Explorations in,On and with Comparison。当Freiberger将“葡萄柚”与宗教研究中的一些通用类别(包括“神龛”)进行比较时,他不同意这一观点。例如,“神龛“的类别更像“水果”,因为两个神龛可能有完全不同的谱系,就像苹果和橙子一样,但仍然属于同一个通用类别。然后,本文对“宗教”和“树”的分类进行了比较,当表面上的“非宗教”现代性的“宗教性”被阐明时,“宗教”这一范畴就成为了一种有用的修辞工具,可以颠覆现代性对普遍性和事实现实的主张。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparing ‘Religion’ and ‘Nonreligion’: towards a Critique of Modernity
This essay starts with reference to “grapefruits” in Oliver Freiberger’s (2019) Considering Comparison and to “apples” and “oranges” in Bruce Lincoln’s (2018) Apples and Oranges: Explorations In, On and With Comparison. It disagrees with Freiberger when he compares “grapefruits” with some generic categories in Religious Studies including “shrine.” The category of “shrine” resembles more “fruits,” for example, because two shrines could have completely different genealogies, just like apples and oranges, but still belong to the same generic category. Then, the essay compares the categories of “religion” and “tree.” The boundary between “religion” and “nonreligion” is as arbitrary as that of “tree” and “non-tree.” At the same time, “religion” and “nonreligion” share common characteristics just like “tree” and “non-tree” do. Given this, it concludes with the suggestion that, when the “religiousness” of ostensibly “nonreligious” modernity is articulated, the category “religion” functions as a useful rhetorical tool to subvert modernity’s claim of universality and factual reality.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Method & Theory in the Study of Religion publishes articles, notes, book reviews and letters which explicitly address the problems of methodology and theory in the academic study of religion. This includes such traditional points of departure as history, philosophy, anthropology and sociology, but also the natural sciences, and such newer disciplinary approaches as feminist theory and studies. Method & Theory in the Study of Religion also concentrates on the critical analysis of theoretical problems prominent in the study of religion.
期刊最新文献
Awkward History, Awkward Theory Front matter The Discursive Side of Sociological Institutionalism in the Study of Religion ‘Religious Literacy’: Some Considerations and Reservations Scholarly Values, Methods, and Evidence in the Academic Study of Religion
×
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