GOD & FRENCH PHENOMENOLOGY by J Aaron Simmons
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 03. 2023
- Complete videos are available on the St John's Timeline, which was relaunched in Autumn 2021. It comprises of over 200 full videos with improved subtitles from leading philosophers and theologians. You can subscribe for £22 (£15 concessions) per year. Institutional subscriptions are also available. stjohnstimeline.org/
Great overview! Clear and concise. A talk of this scope usually takes at least 3hrs and is not half as enjoyable. I personally liked the reference to Rap and Metal music: I had never considered the Judgment Night soundtrack as a rubric for meaningful analytic / continental synthesis when approaching the philosophy of religion. 😃
If I were doing philosophy at Furman, this guy would be my guy! Well explained, sensitive to religious claims, and enthusiastic.
Thanks so much! I am so glad you enjoyed the talk.
In summary, " “Fire. God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, not of the philosophers and the scholars. I will not forget thy word. Amen.” ― Blaise Pascal.
Pascal was certainly on to something!! Thanks so much for watching.
Love this
Thank you so much!
Graat introduction to French Phenomenology. One question I have would be if we were to "move on" so to speak from debates framed in terms of "God as Being" -- i.e. real or not real, being or non-being-- and moved towards something like "God as Love" or "God as Gift," what would that actually look like in practice (other than Pentecostal and charismatic revivals)? What would that look like for evangelization? Would there be evangelization? How might the pastoral approach change? And how might Christians who would an "orthodox" or "traditional" view of God then respond to non-believers who still frame the debate in terms of God as Being? As in, if a nonbeliever asks a believer whether or not God is real, how then does the believer answer the question without seeming to gaslight the person or sound like she is dodging the question?
Great question! I once wrote an essay called “Can Kierkegaard Preach?” The while question was what a Kierkegaardian philosophy might look like in church. In brief, I don’t think it is dodging the question to recognize that the question is traditionally a matter of Greek metaphysics and not of theological concern. Marion is really helpful for thinking about better ways of reframing our God-talk.
Excellent!
Thanks for watching! I hope it was helpful in navigating what is, admittedly, an exceptionally difficult area of philosophy. Thanks for thinking with me.
boom boom boom professor Simnon in the room
Thanks Aaron...,even talking of god as not a " being" seems to still be a "concept" of god....,.maybe this intuition bout not a" "being" is that god is invisible, is SPIRIT
It seems to me that the analytical turn in theology was kind of a weird mistake. Saying things in modes and registers that were at least ahistorical and at most willfully mis representing what the aims and point of the Bible actually might have been. It's as if they were trying to combat the subtraction stories of modernity with grandiose marketing claims.It's as if they wanted to approximate a Religious Grand Unified Theory ala Physics.
Possibly. I tend to see it as not a “mistake” but simply a narrow way of engaging what is mysteriously deep. So I definitely appropriate and learn from analytic philosophy of religion in countless ways, but still think it is a really good tool for addressing one thing, but maybe not for all the other things that need considered. This is why I defend “mashup” approaches. Phenomenology is not “better” as such than analytic thought, but simply better at some things. Analytic is better at other things. Both on their own are “narrow” on different ways. Thanks so much for thinking with me!