Re: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?

Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 - 01:20:18 GMT

  • Next message: Sam Norton: "Re: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?"

    Ham to David, Chin, Sam, MSH and the Kantosphere Kids --

    I still don't know what Kantosphere is, unless it's Immanuel's belated
    personal website!

    However, since you folks have discovered Schleiermacher, whose thoughts on
    transcendence have always fascinated me, I thought you might find this
    analysis by Jeff Robbins of particular interest for a comparison with the
    MoQ. The first quoted paragraph is good historical background on these two
    philosophers. In the second paragraph, try substituting Quality for the
    words "religion", "religious" and "theology", and I think you'll see what I

    "During the Enlightenment period religion was variously conceived as
    superstition, morality, dogma, and fanaticism. Generally speaking,
    rationality took the place that was once the exclusive domain of religion
    and revelation, God was equated with moral order, and piety was excused as a
    crutch no longer necessary. Yet a more focused analysis shows a more subtle
    and nuanced theological sensibility. Take Immanuel Kant, for instance. In
    addition to his critical philosophy that turned reason back on itself in an
    exploration of the very conditions that make knowledge possible, Kant was
    concerned with the place of religion. "Religion within the limits of reason
    alone" was Kant's solution to the pitfalls of previous religious thought and
    expression; a solution, however, that confined religion to the realm of
    ethics, and one that made thought of God an impossibility. The gap inscribed
    between the noumenal and phenomenal left an epistemological wound making
    theology both an anachronism and oxymoron.

    "But what if religion precedes rationality? What if it is theology that
    makes thought possible? Then, religion would know no limits; its thought of
    transcendence would be its own transgression. What if the religious realm
    belonged to the immediate self-conscious, if it were the universal feeling
    of absolute dependence? Then, theology would be a thinking that both agrees
    and disagrees with Kant. Yes, religion cannot be thought because it comes
    before thought and cannot be bound by the limits thought necessarily imposes
    on itself in order to think and to know. But at the same time, religion
    cannot not be thought, because every thought is incomplete without that
    which gives thought to think. As Schleiermacher tells us, thinking is also a
    feeling, and feeling is also an action. So the thought that thinks and feels
    and acts is the thought rightly named theology. And as long as thought knows
    its limits by acknowledging its dependence, then theology is ensured as the
    hidden ontology that secures the place of God"

    Merry Christmas to all,

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 15 2004 - 02:17:29 GMT