科学-灵性对跖之争——通过融合解决长期冲突?读书源于偶然的圣泰拉

Emmanuel Adeniyi
{"title":"科学-灵性对跖之争——通过融合解决长期冲突?读书源于偶然的圣泰拉","authors":"Emmanuel Adeniyi","doi":"10.21533/epiphany.v15i1.382","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The conflict between science and spirituality is an established fact, even though some scholars dispute this reality arguing that it is rath er unfashionable for contemporary academic inquiry. The present study interrogates the foregoing position, submitting that the conflict between the two fields of knowledge still subsists. It advocates the recognition of spirituality as an alternative knowledge field, despite its lack of deductive, empirical procedures. The proposition builds on the reality of existential risks threatening humanity which can be ade quately tackled if the two domains collaborate to develop mechanisms for ending human misery. Using syncretism/hybridity as a conceptual touchstone, the article attempts a postcolonial reading of Irete Lazo’s The Accidental Santera (2008) to pontificate about the imperativeness of mutuality between science and spirituality, and the danger inherent in a branch of knowledge displaying hubristic, overweening attitude towards another knowledge field. The study further suggests a new order to reposition the knowledge fields.","PeriodicalId":30629,"journal":{"name":"Epiphany","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"SCIENCE-SPIRITUALITY ANTIPODAL DEBATE – RESOLVING LONG-TIME CLASH THROUGH SYNCRETISM? READING FROM THE ACCIDENTAL SANTERA\",\"authors\":\"Emmanuel Adeniyi\",\"doi\":\"10.21533/epiphany.v15i1.382\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The conflict between science and spirituality is an established fact, even though some scholars dispute this reality arguing that it is rath er unfashionable for contemporary academic inquiry. The present study interrogates the foregoing position, submitting that the conflict between the two fields of knowledge still subsists. It advocates the recognition of spirituality as an alternative knowledge field, despite its lack of deductive, empirical procedures. The proposition builds on the reality of existential risks threatening humanity which can be ade quately tackled if the two domains collaborate to develop mechanisms for ending human misery. Using syncretism/hybridity as a conceptual touchstone, the article attempts a postcolonial reading of Irete Lazo’s The Accidental Santera (2008) to pontificate about the imperativeness of mutuality between science and spirituality, and the danger inherent in a branch of knowledge displaying hubristic, overweening attitude towards another knowledge field. The study further suggests a new order to reposition the knowledge fields.\",\"PeriodicalId\":30629,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Epiphany\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Epiphany\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21533/epiphany.v15i1.382\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epiphany","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21533/epiphany.v15i1.382","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

科学与灵性之间的冲突是一个既定的事实,尽管一些学者对这一现实提出异议,认为这对当代学术研究来说是相当不时髦的。本研究质疑上述立场,提出两个知识领域之间的冲突仍然存在。它提倡承认灵性作为一个替代知识领域,尽管它缺乏演绎,经验的程序。这一主张建立在威胁人类的生存风险的现实基础上,如果这两个领域合作制定结束人类苦难的机制,就可以适当地解决这一现实。本文以融合/混杂作为概念试金石,试图以后殖民的方式解读Irete Lazo的《偶然的桑特拉》(2008),阐述科学与灵性之间相互关系的必要性,以及对另一个知识领域表现出傲慢自大态度的知识分支所固有的危险。研究进一步提出了重新定位知识领域的新秩序。
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
SCIENCE-SPIRITUALITY ANTIPODAL DEBATE – RESOLVING LONG-TIME CLASH THROUGH SYNCRETISM? READING FROM THE ACCIDENTAL SANTERA
The conflict between science and spirituality is an established fact, even though some scholars dispute this reality arguing that it is rath er unfashionable for contemporary academic inquiry. The present study interrogates the foregoing position, submitting that the conflict between the two fields of knowledge still subsists. It advocates the recognition of spirituality as an alternative knowledge field, despite its lack of deductive, empirical procedures. The proposition builds on the reality of existential risks threatening humanity which can be ade quately tackled if the two domains collaborate to develop mechanisms for ending human misery. Using syncretism/hybridity as a conceptual touchstone, the article attempts a postcolonial reading of Irete Lazo’s The Accidental Santera (2008) to pontificate about the imperativeness of mutuality between science and spirituality, and the danger inherent in a branch of knowledge displaying hubristic, overweening attitude towards another knowledge field. The study further suggests a new order to reposition the knowledge fields.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
CLASSICAL VERSUS BLACK MUSIC AS AN IDENTITY TROPE IN LANGSTON HUGHES’S THE WAYS OF WHITE FOLKS DYSFUNCTIONAL BELIEFS ABOUT SEXUAL INTERCOURSE: INTERACTION EFFECTS OF SEX AND AGE ON THE BOSNIAN SAMPLE THE ALTERNATE HISTORY OF THE 1918 FLU AS A CONSPIRACY IN DON’T NOD’S VAMPYR HAMLET’S STOIC DELAY: SHAKESPEAREAN APPROACH TO SENECAN PHILOSOPHY "FROM THE I TO THE WE": DESIRE AND BECOMING IN CARSON MCCULLERS’ THE MEMBER OF THE WEDDING
×
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