不及物的深渊:批判现实主义与宗教理论

Q2 Arts and Humanities Zeitschrift fur Religionswissenschaft Pub Date : 2021-10-08 DOI:10.1515/zfr-2021-0024
Michael Stausberg
{"title":"不及物的深渊:批判现实主义与宗教理论","authors":"Michael Stausberg","doi":"10.1515/zfr-2021-0024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"From the mid-1970s onwards Hubert Seiwert published a series of pioneering works on the positioning of the study of religion/s (Religionswissenschaft) as an academic discipline. These were the days of the eclipse of the phenomenology of religion, when the need was felt to get more solid ground under one’s feet in order to rejuvenate the discipline. Seiwert positioned himself in the camp of those who sought their refuge in the philosophy of science, in particular Critical Rationalism. Throughout his career as one of Germany’s most prominent scholars of religion, Seiwert’s work was informed by some recurrent leitmotivs: the importance of the philosophy of science, the duality and combination of the historical and systematic dimensions of the study of religion, and the status of Religionswissenschaft as an empirical science. In a text from 2014, Seiwert claims that the empirical status of Religionswissenschaft opposes ‘big theories’ and he diagnoses an excess of theoretical selfreticence in the study of religion/s. Other disciplines, Seiwert thinks (and I concur), seem to be more at ease with theorizing about religion. Yet, it is doubtful whether it is the empirical character of our discipline that is the causal factor here: archaeology, anthropology and sociology, for example, are hardly less empirical, yet they are much more prone to theorizing. In addition, Seiwert finds that theory formation has a tendency to get detached from empirical materials and to develop","PeriodicalId":38422,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift fur Religionswissenschaft","volume":"29 1","pages":"268 - 274"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Abyss of Intransitivity: On Critical Realism and Theories of Religion\",\"authors\":\"Michael Stausberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/zfr-2021-0024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"From the mid-1970s onwards Hubert Seiwert published a series of pioneering works on the positioning of the study of religion/s (Religionswissenschaft) as an academic discipline. These were the days of the eclipse of the phenomenology of religion, when the need was felt to get more solid ground under one’s feet in order to rejuvenate the discipline. Seiwert positioned himself in the camp of those who sought their refuge in the philosophy of science, in particular Critical Rationalism. Throughout his career as one of Germany’s most prominent scholars of religion, Seiwert’s work was informed by some recurrent leitmotivs: the importance of the philosophy of science, the duality and combination of the historical and systematic dimensions of the study of religion, and the status of Religionswissenschaft as an empirical science. In a text from 2014, Seiwert claims that the empirical status of Religionswissenschaft opposes ‘big theories’ and he diagnoses an excess of theoretical selfreticence in the study of religion/s. Other disciplines, Seiwert thinks (and I concur), seem to be more at ease with theorizing about religion. Yet, it is doubtful whether it is the empirical character of our discipline that is the causal factor here: archaeology, anthropology and sociology, for example, are hardly less empirical, yet they are much more prone to theorizing. In addition, Seiwert finds that theory formation has a tendency to get detached from empirical materials and to develop\",\"PeriodicalId\":38422,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Zeitschrift fur Religionswissenschaft\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"268 - 274\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Zeitschrift fur Religionswissenschaft\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/zfr-2021-0024\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift fur Religionswissenschaft","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/zfr-2021-0024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

从20世纪70年代中期开始,Hubert Seiwert发表了一系列开创性的著作,将宗教研究定位为一门学术学科。这是宗教现象学黯然失色的日子,当时人们觉得有必要在自己的脚下找到更坚实的基础,以振兴这门学科。Seiwert将自己定位在那些在科学哲学,特别是批判理性主义中寻求庇护的人的阵营中。在他作为德国最著名的宗教学者之一的整个职业生涯中,Seiwert的工作受到了一些反复出现的主题的影响:科学哲学的重要性,宗教研究的历史和系统维度的双重性和组合性,以及宗教作为实证科学的地位。在2014年的一篇文章中,Seiwert声称宗教的经验地位反对“大理论”,他认为在宗教研究中存在过度的理论沉默。Seiwert认为(我也同意)其他学科似乎更容易对宗教进行理论化。然而,值得怀疑的是,我们学科的实证特征是否是这里的因果因素:例如,考古学、人类学和社会学的实证性很强,但它们更倾向于理论化。此外,Seiwert发现理论形成有脱离经验材料和发展的趋势
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
The Abyss of Intransitivity: On Critical Realism and Theories of Religion
From the mid-1970s onwards Hubert Seiwert published a series of pioneering works on the positioning of the study of religion/s (Religionswissenschaft) as an academic discipline. These were the days of the eclipse of the phenomenology of religion, when the need was felt to get more solid ground under one’s feet in order to rejuvenate the discipline. Seiwert positioned himself in the camp of those who sought their refuge in the philosophy of science, in particular Critical Rationalism. Throughout his career as one of Germany’s most prominent scholars of religion, Seiwert’s work was informed by some recurrent leitmotivs: the importance of the philosophy of science, the duality and combination of the historical and systematic dimensions of the study of religion, and the status of Religionswissenschaft as an empirical science. In a text from 2014, Seiwert claims that the empirical status of Religionswissenschaft opposes ‘big theories’ and he diagnoses an excess of theoretical selfreticence in the study of religion/s. Other disciplines, Seiwert thinks (and I concur), seem to be more at ease with theorizing about religion. Yet, it is doubtful whether it is the empirical character of our discipline that is the causal factor here: archaeology, anthropology and sociology, for example, are hardly less empirical, yet they are much more prone to theorizing. In addition, Seiwert finds that theory formation has a tendency to get detached from empirical materials and to develop
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
Zeitschrift fur Religionswissenschaft
Zeitschrift fur Religionswissenschaft Arts and Humanities-Religious Studies
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊最新文献
Träume, Tränen und Tempel Religiöse Tradition in Bewegung Der Tod Gottes und das nachidealistische Denken Oliver Krüger: Virtualität und Unsterblichkeit. Gott, Evolution und die Singularität im Post- und Transhumanismus. Rombach Wissenschaft Reihe Litterae, Bd. 123 (Freiburg i. Br.: Rombach Verlag, 2. überarb. u. ergänzte Auflage 2019), 473 S., ISBN 978-3-96821-626-3. Nickolas P. Roubekas: The Study of Greek and Roman Religions: Insularity and Assimilation (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2022), xiii +173 pp., ISBN 9781350102613, £76.50. DOI: 10.5040/9781350102804.
×
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