DOCSLIB.ORG

Morally Perfect Being Theolog

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Morally Perfect Being Theolog Morally Perfect Being Theology: A Doctrine of Divine Humility A thesis submitted to Charles Sturt University in fulfilment of the requirements of the award of Doctor of Philosophy Matthew A. Wilcoxen B.A., Biola University M.A., Talbot School of Theology August, 2017 iii CONTENTS Certificate of Authorship v Acknowledgments vii Abstract ix Introduction 1 Chapter 1: Morally Perfect Being Theology 9 Heidegger’s critique of ontotheology 13 Love over being: Jean-Luc Marion 25 Therapy for metaphysical malaise: Kevin Hector 34 The necessity of ‘perfect being theology’ 44 A more excellent way: morally perfect being theology 48 Conclusion: towards a doctrine of divine humility 53 Chapter 2: Definitions of Humility 55 Analytic definitions of humility 55 Magnanimity and not humility: Aristotle 59 Against humility: Hume, Nietzsche, and Goldstein 64 Humility as magnanimity: the classical Christian context 72 Conclusion: A concept fit for God 93 Chapter 3: Augustine: Scripture’s Suggestive Tensions 99 Exodus 3:14-15: ‘the name of being’ and ‘the name of mercy’ 101 John 5:19-30: trinitarian processions and inseparable operations 107 Philippians 2:6-7: the forma dei and the forma servi 115 Conclusion: Augustine’s ambiguous doctrine of divine humility 127 Chapter 4: Karl Barth: Divine Humility as “An Offensive Fact” 131 “The way of the Son of God into the far country” 134 Querying Barth’s account of inter-trinitarian obedience 142 Christ’s will(s): dyothelitism or monothelitism? 155 Conclusion: correcting Barth on divine humility 170 Chapter 5: Katherine Sonderegger: The Mystery of Divine Energy 175 Theological compatibilism and God’s real presence in concepts 177 Humility as divine energy: ethicising omnipotence 187 Mystery, counterfactuals, and the relocation of the divine will 202 Conclusion: divine humility without Christocentrism 210 Conclusion 213 Reference List 223 v CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORSHIP I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, understand that it contains no material previously published or written by another person, nor material which to a substantial extent has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at Charles Sturt University or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgment is made in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by colleagues with whom I have worked at Charles Sturt University or elsewhere during my candidature is fully acknowledged. I agree that this thesis be accessible for the purpose of study and research in accordance with the normal conditions established by the Executive Director, Library Services, Charles Sturt University or nominee, for the care, loan and reproduction of theses, subject to confidentiality provisions as approved by the University. Name: Matthew A. Wilcoxen Signature: Date: vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Writing a doctoral thesis in theology is humiliating. In one’s most honest moments, one wonders: “After all this time, and all this work, is this all that I have been able to say?” Yet it is also humbling, in the truest sense of that word. For, empowered and emboldened by both celestial and terrestrial sources, one has the privilege of uttering a word about God, adding an echo, however faint, to the great conversation that is the Christian faith. Recognising the fact that the primary, heavenly empowerment works through secondary causes, I would like to express my gratitude to those who have travelled with me on this journey. My supervisor, Dr. Benjamin Myers, has only grown more impressive the longer and better I have known him. He has served for me as an unattainable ideal of excellence in scholarship, a lively and imaginative teacher, and a moral exemplar. He is nearly always the most talented person in a room, but he consistently puts his gifts to use for the good of others. I am only one of the many beneficiaries of his generosity. I will always cherish the time I spent conversing with him about theology and life in beautiful Sydney, Australia. My only regrets are that that time is now over, and that I have not been able to do work worthy of one of his students. I had other teachers who introduced me to the study of theology. The Rev. Dr. Mickey Klink was my first theological instructor. He showed me the joy and freedom of Christian scholarship, and demonstrated the possibility of being both a pastor and a theologian. Professor Jon Lunde remains one of the best theological teachers I have ever witnessed in action, and it was a privilege to serve as his teaching assistant when I was an undergraduate. While I never got to know Robert B. Price well, his graduate courses in theology exposed me to the best in historical and systematic theology, and his lectures were endlessly fascinating. I have been fortunate always to have fellow students of theology to spur me on along the way. There are too many to be named. But Jeff Aernie, Janice McRandal, Steve Wright, Ian Packer, and Thomas Swanton are all due specific mention. All of this thesis was written while I was engaged in vocational Christian ministry, and I would be remiss if I didn’t appreciate the people and congregations who gave me the freedom and support along the way: Bruce Pollard, Paul Yeates, the Rev. Dan Anderson, and the Rev. Dr. David Sandifer of Robert Menzies College at Macquarie University; the Rev. Clif McDonnell, Camille Sena, and the parishioners at All Saints’ Anglican Church in Balgowlah, New South Wales; and the Rev. Dan Claire and the parish council at The Church of the Resurrection in Washington, D.C. viii Most importantly, I would like to thank my wife, Annie. She cheerfully sacrificed in various ways so that I could complete this thesis, while also making sure that our home was always filled with beauty and laughter. I am grateful for her faithful companionship and her constant encouragement. ix ABSTRACT The question facing contemporary theology is not, as has often been thought, a question of whether it can speak of God’s being but, rather, how best to do so. What is needed in the Christian doctrine of God is a way to express the integrity of God’s metaphysical and moral attributes, and between God’s being in se and pro nobis—a “morally perfect being theology” is needed. In this thesis I argue that humility, when rightly defined, provides a compelling and coherent way forward. To make this case, I analyse and evaluate the ways humility is applied to God by three theologians: St. Augustine, Karl Barth, and Katherine Sonderegger. In critical dialogue with these innovative thinkers, I sketch a doctrine of divine humility within the wider constellation of Christological and Trinitarian concerns in the doctrine of God, one that will contribute to important ongoing debates in Christian theology. 1 INTRODUCTION The doctrine of God should go beyond merely collecting and categorising those things that are attributed to God in the pages of scripture. It ought to do more than merely rehearse the deliverances of the great theologians of times past. These are necessary undertakings for all who would think and write about God, no doubt, but the goal of systematic theology is to build constructively on the biblical and theological foundations that have been laid. As the late John Webster writes, the vocation of Christian dogmatics is to worship God “by crafting concepts to turn the mind to the divine splendour.”1 Since they aim to be communicative tools of the knowledge of God, such concepts in Christian theology must be crafted carefully and evaluated as to their coherence with holy writ, their place within the matrix of creedal dogma, basic logical consistency, and their ability to solve or ameliorate existing conceptual difficulties within the theological tradition or some substratum thereof. To the degree that they fulfill these criteria, theological concepts can be offered to the Christian community as what Webster calls “instruments for spiritual apprehension”, instruments that are to be used in Christian thought, speech, and prayer.2 Of course, the relation between concepts and prayer is not unidirectional; theologians have long recognised the fact that what they are engaged in is a conceptual development of an apprehension that is already embedded in the spiritual life of the Christian faith: lex orandi, lex credendi. The words of prayer that rung out as I wrote this thesis are from Thomas Cranmer’s famous “Prayer of Humble Access”: “We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy table. But thou art the same Lord 1 John B. Webster, God Without Measure: Working Papers in Christian Theology, Volume 1: God and the Works of God (London: Bloomsbury, 2016), p. 27. 2 Webster, God Without Measure, pp. 27-28. 2 whose property is always to have mercy.” How serious is one to take the words of this Anglican prayer? Does it encapsulate some metaphysical truth of the gospel, or is it mere rhetorical flourish? In the Australian prayer book from which I first prayed these words, the term “nature” is substituted for “property”. Is it God’s “nature”, his very being, to condescend to creatures who, being both finite and sinful, are doubly unworthy? Is this merciful God’s nature “always”—that is, from all eternity? Is it possible to attribute “mercy” to the being of God while preserving the non-negotiable self- existence of God? If the answer to this cluster of questions is “yes”, then how might this be accomplished conceptually? In this thesis, I argue that it is possible to answer these questions in the affirmative, and I attempt to show just how one might give this answer.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ontotheology? Understanding Heidegger’S Destruktion of Metaphysics* Iain Thomson
    T E D U L G O E R · Internationa l Journal o f Philo sophical Studies Vol.8(3), 297–327; · T a p y u lo o r Gr & Fr ancis Ontotheology? Understanding Heidegger’s Destruktion of Metaphysics* Iain Thomson Abstract Heidegger’s Destruktion of the metaphysical tradition leads him to the view that all Western metaphysical systems make foundational claims best understood as ‘ontotheological’. Metaphysics establishes the conceptual parameters of intelligibility by ontologically grounding and theologically legitimating our changing historical sense of what is. By rst elucidating and then problematizing Heidegger’s claim that all Western metaphysics shares this ontotheological structure, I reconstruct the most important components of the original and provocative account of the history of metaphysics that Heidegger gives in support of his idiosyncratic understanding of metaphysics. Arguing that this historical narrative generates the critical force of Heidegger’s larger philosophical project (namely, his attempt to nd a path beyond our own nihilistic Nietzschean age), I conclude by briey showing how Heidegger’s return to the inception of Western metaphysics allows him to uncover two important aspects of Being’s pre-metaphysical phenomeno- logical self-manifestation, aspects which have long been buried beneath the metaphysical tradition but which are crucial to Heidegger’s attempt to move beyond our late-modern, Nietzschean impasse. Keywords: Heidegger; ontotheology; metaphysics; deconstruction; Nietzsche; nihilism Upon hearing the expression ‘ontotheology’, many philosophers start looking for the door. Those who do not may know that it was under the title of this ‘distasteful neologism’ (for which we have Kant to thank)1 that the later Heidegger elaborated his seemingly ruthless critique of Western metaphysics.
    [Show full text]
  • Heidegger, Marcuse, Feenberg1
    SYMPOSIUM ON QUESTIONING TECHNOLOGY BY ANDREW FEENBERG 11th Biennial Conference of the Society for Philosophy and Technology, San Jose, California, 1999. [Inquiry, Summer 2000, pp. 225-238.] From the Question Concerning Technology to the Quest for a Democratic Technology: Heidegger, Marcuse, Feenberg1 Iain Thomson University of California, San Diego Abstract Andrew Feenberg's most recent contribution to the critical theory of technology, Questioning Technology, is best understood as a synthesis and extension of the critiques of technology developed by Heidegger and Marcuse. By thus situating Feenberg's endeavor to articulate and preserve a meaningful sense of agency in our increasingly technologized lifeworld, I show that some of the deepest tensions in Heidegger and Marcuse's relation re-emerge within Feenberg's own critical theory. Most significant here is the fact that Feenberg, following Marcuse, exaggerates Heidegger's 'fatalism' about technology. I contend that this mistake stems from Feenberg's false ascription of a technological 'essentialism' to Heidegger. Correcting this and several related problems, I reconstruct Feenberg's 'radical democratic' call for a counter-hegemonic democratization of technological design, arguing that although this timely and important project takes its inspiration from Marcuse, in the end Feenberg remains closer to Heidegger than his Marcuseanism allows him to acknowledge. I. Introduction Richard Wolin has remarked that '[t]he full story of Marcuse's relation to Heidegger has yet to be written.'2 Indeed, there are at least two stories to be told about the Marcuse-Heidegger relationship: the story of its historical past and the story of its philosophical future. Let us hope that intellectual historians like Wolin will continue to bring the past of this important relation to light; in the meantime, Andrew Feenberg has already begun writing the philosophical story of its future.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontology and Ethics at the Intersection of Phenomenology and Environmental Philosophy*
    Inquiry, 47, 380–412 Ontology and Ethics at the Intersection of Phenomenology and Environmental Philosophy* Iain Thomson University of New Mexico The idea inspiring the eco-phenomenological movement is that phenomenology can help remedy our environmental crisis by uprooting and replacing environmentally- destructive ethical and metaphysical presuppositions inherited from modern philosophy. Eco-phenomenology’s critiques of subject/object dualism and the fact/value divide are sketched and its positive alternatives examined. Two competing approaches are discerned within the eco-phenomenological movement: Nietzscheans and Husserlians propose a naturalistic ethical realism in which good and bad are ultimately matters of fact, and values should be grounded in these proto- ethical facts; Heideggerians and Levinasians articulate a transcendental ethical realism according to which we discover what really matters when we are appropriately open to the environment, but what we thereby discover is a transcendental source of meaning that cannot be reduced to facts, values, or entities of any kind. These two species of ethical realism generate different kinds of ethical perfectionism: naturalistic ethical realism yields an eco-centric perfectionism which stresses the flourishing of life in general; transcendental ethical realism leads to a more ‘humanistic’ perfectionism which emphasizes the cultivation of distinctive traits of Dasein. Both approaches are examined, and the Heideggerian strand of the humanistic approach defended, since it approaches the best elements of the eco-centric view while avoiding its problematic ontological assumptions and anti-humanistic implications. I. Introduction: Uncovering the Conceptual Roots of Environmental Devastation What happens when you cross phenomenology with environmental philoso- phy? According to the editors of Eco-Phenomenology: Back to the Earth Itself, you get an important interdisciplinary movement.
    [Show full text]
  • A Response to Don Ihde's Charge
    Center for Open Access in Science ▪ https://www.centerprode.com/ojsp.html Open Journal for Studies in Philosophy, 2020, 4(1), 1-10. ISSN (Online) 2560-5380 ▪ https://doi.org/10.32591/coas.ojsp.0401.01001z _________________________________________________________________________ Thinking Essence, Thinking Technology: A Response to Don Ihde’s Charge Bowen Zha Kyushu University, Faculty of Humanities, Fukuoka, JAPAN Received: 6 April 2020 ▪ Accepted: 25 May 2020 ▪ Published Online: 2 June 2020 Abstract Heidegger’s seminal lecture, The Question Concerning Technology, has greatly influenced the contemporary philosophy of technology. However, scholars have different views regarding whether Heidegger’s concept of technology is essentialist. On the one hand, Andrew Feenberg and Don Ihde have argued for this description, while on the other, Iain Thomson has claimed that, though Heidegger appears to be a technological essentialist, but does little to discredit his profound ontological understanding of the historical impact of technology. In this essay, I will focus on Ihde’s critique and argue that his charge of essentialism is itself a misinterpretation of Heidegger’s understanding of technology. I conclude that the meaning of essence in Heidegger’s technology should be interpreted as that of “enduring,” and in that way, describing Heidegger’s concept of technology as essentialism is a metaphysical misinterpretation. Keywords: Martin Heidegger, Don Ihde, the essence of technology, romanticism, essentialism. 1. Introduction Martin Heidegger’s 1953 lecture The Questions Concerning Technology remains one of the most influential textbooks in the philosophy of English technology. Although widely celebrated, Heidegger’s dissertation is still regarded as an essentialist explanation of technology. Recently, technical philosophers such as Andrew Feenberg and Peter-Paul Verbeek reiterated this allegation of essentialism.
    [Show full text]
  • Sánchez 2020 Page 1 Carlos Alberto Sánchez, Phd Professor Of
    Carlos Alberto Sánchez, PhD Professor of Philosophy San José State University (408)924-7581 [email protected] http://www.sjsu.edu/people/carlos.sanchez Areas of Research and Publication • Mexican Philosophy • Philosophy of Violence • Philosophy of Immigration • Philosophy of History • Phenomenology and Existentialism Education • PhD., Philosophy, University of New Mexico, 2006. (Iain Thomson, Chair) • M.A., Philosophy, San Jose State University, 2000. • B.S., Advertising, San Jose State University, 1998. Academic Posts • Professor, 2015—Present San Jose State University o San Jose State University’s President Scholar 2017-2018 (Awarded to University’s Top Faculty Scholar). • Associate Professor, 2010—2015 San Jose State University • Assistant Professor, 2006—2010 San Jose State University Books Published (6) 1. (2020) Sánchez, Carlos Alberto & Francisco Gallegos. The Disintegration of Community: On Jorge Portilla’s Social and Political Philosophy, with Translations of Selected Essays. Albany: State University of New York Press. 2. (2017) Sánchez, Carlos Alberto & Robert E. Sanchez (Editors). Mexican Philosophy in the 20th Century: Essential Readings. Oxford University Press. 3. (2016) Sánchez, Carlos Alberto. Contingency and Commitment: Mexican Existentialism and the Place of Philosophy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. 4. (2012) Sánchez, Carlos Alberto. The Suspension of Seriousness: On the Phenomenology of Jorge Portilla. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. 5. (2010) Sánchez, Carlos Alberto. From Epistemic Justification to Philosophical Authenticity: A Study in Husserl’s Phenomenological Epistemology. Lambert Academic Publishing. Sánchez 2020 Page 1 6. (2010) Sánchez, Carlos A. & Jules Simon. The Thought and Social Engagement in the Mexican- American Philosophy of John H. Haddox. Lewinston: The Edwin Mellen Press.
    [Show full text]
  • Heidegger on Ontological Education, Or: How We Become What We
    Inquiry, 44, 243–68 Heidegger on Ontological Education,or: How We Become What We Are Iain Thomson University of NewMexico Heidegger presciently diagnosed the current crisis in higher education. Contemporary theorists like Bill Readings extend and update Heidegger’s critique, documenting the increasing instrumentalization, professionalization, vocationalization, corporatization, and technologization of the modern university, the dissolution of its unifying and guiding ideals, and, consequently, the growing hyper-specialization and ruinous fragmentation of its departments. Unlike Heidegger, however, these critics do not recognize such disturbing trends as interlocking symptoms of an underlying ontological problem and so they provide no positive vision for the future of higher education. Byunderstanding our educational crisis ‘ontohistorically’, Heidegger is able to develop an alternative, ontological conception of education which he hopes will help bring about arenaissance of the university. In aprovocative reading of Plato’s famous ‘allegory of the cave’, Heidegger excavates and appropriates the original Western educational ideal of Platonic paideia,outlining the pedagogy of an ontological education capable of directly challenging the ‘technological understanding of being’he holds responsible for our contemporary educational crisis. This notion of ontological education can best be understood as aphilosophical perfectionism, are-essentialization of the currently empty ideal of educational ‘excellence’by which Heidegger believes wecan reconnect
    [Show full text]
  • Heidegger and the Politics of the University 515
    HEIDEGGER AND THE POLITICS OF THE UNIVERSITY 515 Heidegger and the Politics of the University IAIN THOMSON* An ancient proverb ran, “He who learns but does not think is lost.” Confucius added, “He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger.”1 IF THIS PROVERB’S EXHORTATION TO THINKING sounds paradigmatically Heideggerian, Confucius’s wise rejoinder helps raise that haunting political question: What, if anything, did Heidegger learn from his appalling misadventure with Nazism? Heidegger told Der Spiegel that he reached this infamous political decision “by way of the university.” If, as I believe, Heidegger’s philosophical views on higher edu- cation were largely responsible for his decision to become the first Nazi Rector of Freiburg University in 1933, then one of our Confucian questions becomes: Did Heidegger learn from what he later called his “life’s greatest stupidity” and transform the underlying philosophical views that helped motivate this “political mistake”?2 The only scholars to address this question, Otto Pöggeler and Jacques Derrida, both think so.3 We will examine their interpretations once we are in a better posi- tion to evaluate them. Obviously, we need first to understand Heidegger’s early views on university education before we can decide whether or not he changed these views after the war. This task is complicated, however, by the fact that Heidegger’s early work on the university turns out to be less philosophically ho- 1 Confucius, The Analects of Confucius, Arthur Waley, trans. (New York: Vintage Books, 1989), II.11, 91 (translation emended). 2 Heidegger, “Only A God Can Save Us,” Maria P.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Education: Heidegger's Philosophy in the Service Of
    434 Rethinking Education Rethinking Education: Heidegger’s Philosophy in the Service of Education Doron Yosef-Hassidim University of Toronto The English-speaking academic world increasingly recognizes Martin Heide- gger’s potential contribution to education. In this article I explore key notions in Heidegger’s philosophy in order to further realize this potential. One purpose of examining the latent contribution of his work to education is to scrutinize and shape the relationship between philosophy and education and so to enhance both realms. As such, the article aims not only to challenge and redefine our perception of public education, but also to assist in understanding what it means to be a human being. I first briefly review central notions in Heidegger’s ontology as described in Being and Time, point toward some of the difficulties in using it for education, and suggest various avenues to overcome them. Then I suggest and examine several implications for the essence of education following Heidegger’s philosophy and propose shifts in the central characteristics of education. Finally, I focus on one implication and reassess the place of content in education. It should be stressed from the outset that my suggestions are not direct interpretations of Heidegger’s educational thought or logical inferences from his philosophy; rather, Heidegger’s work serves more as an inspiration in rethinking the role and goal of education. BETWEEN ONTOLOGY AND EDUCATION At the heart of Heidegger’s ontology lies the “ontological difference”: the distinction between beings and Being,1 or between a being and Being. When we refer to things, when we point to something, we talk about beings.
    [Show full text]
  • The Question Concerning Heidegger
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Texas A&M University THE QUESTION CONCERNING HEIDEGGER: TECHNOLOGY AND BEING, A DEEPER UNDERSTANDING A Thesis by JAMES MICHAEL TAYLOR Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS August 2006 Major Subject: Philosophy THE QUESTION CONCERNING HEIDEGGER: TECHNOLOGY AND BEING, A DEEPER UNDERSTANDING A Thesis by JAMES MICHAEL TAYLOR Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Approved by: Chair of Committee, Theodore George Committee Members, Stephen Daniel Robert Shandley Head of Department, Robin Smith August 2006 Major Subject: Philosophy iii ABSTRACT The Question Concerning Heidegger: Technology and Being, a Deeper Understanding. (August 2006) James Michael Taylor, B.A., Dallas Baptist University Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. Theodore George The primary goal of this thesis is to show that Martin Heidegger’s philosophy of technology stems directly from his ontology. Specifically that his notion of technology, as the enframing destining spirit of this age, is a revelation of being itself as technology in this age. The thesis begins with an introduction that sets up the major points and briefly summarizes each of the chapters. Chapter I primarily deals with the question of what motivates Heidegger to reflect philosophically on technology. This idea is also broadened to include the basic experiences and concepts that might cause anyone to reflect on technology. The historical, scientific, metaphysical, practical, personal, and spiritual are the motivational forces that drive someone to philosophize about technology.
    [Show full text]
  • White's Time and Death
    Inquiry, Vol. 50, No. 1, 103–120, February 2007 On the Advantages and Disadvantages of Reading Heidegger Backwards: White’s Time and Death* IAIN THOMSON University of New Mexico, USA (Received 22 July 2006) ABSTRACT In Time and Death: Heidegger’s Analysis of Finitude, Carol White pursues a strange hermeneutic strategy, reading Heidegger backwards by reading the central ideas of his later work back into his early magnum opus, Being and Time. White follows some of Heidegger’s own later directives in pursuing this hermeneutic strategy, and this paper critically explores these directives along with the original reading that emerges from following them. The conclusion reached is that White’s creative book is not persuasive as a strict interpretation of Heidegger’s early work, but remains extremely helpful for deepening our appreciation of Heidegger’s thought as a whole. Most importantly, White helps us to understand the pivotal role that thinking about death played in the lifelong development of Heidegger’s philosophy. Carol White’s Time and Death: Heidegger’s Analysis of Finitude is a book rich in thought, dense in original interpretive claims, and overflowing with supporting textual references. Indeed, there is so much going on in White’s text that a reviewer might be excused for initially feeling a bit like a hungry mosquito upon discovering an elephant, that is, excited and daunted at the same time, since there is more food for thought here than a single reviewer can hope to digest. It is fortunate, then, that Hubert Dreyfus has already written a magisterial ‘‘Foreword’’ to White’s book, in which he introduces her work by focusing on her original and provocative interpretation of *Carol J.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Haley Irene Burke Curriculum Vitae, May 2021
    Haley Irene Burke Curriculum Vitae, May 2021 Email: [email protected] Phone: 979-845-5660 Address: 305 YMCA Building College Station, TX 77843 Education PhD, Philosophy. In progress. Texas A&M University. College Station, TX. Fall 2019–present. Dissertation Advisor: Dr. Theodore George MA, English. In progress. Texas A&M University. College Station, TX. Fall 2020-present. MA (awarded with Distinction), Philosophy. University of New Mexico. Albuquerque, NM. Fall 2016–December 2018. Thesis title: “On the Way to Conversing: Heidegger and Transformative Language.” Advisor: Dr. Iain Thomson. Readers: Dr. Ann Murphy and Dr. Paul Livingston. BA, Philosophy, with a minor in English Literature. Metropolitan State University of Denver. Denver, CO. Fall 2013–Spring 2016. Research and Teaching Interests AOS: 19th and 20th Century Continental Philosophy (esp. Existentialism, Phenomenology, Hermeneutics), Aesthetics, and Social and Political Philosophy. AOC: History of Philosophy. Research Publications: Book Reviews 1. Review of Eckhart, Heidegger, and the Imperative of Releasement by Ian Alexander Moore (SUNY. 2019) in Continental Philosophy Review. 53.4 (2020): 523–527 Conference and Professional Presentations 1 1. “Metaphysics and Its Manifestations: Art as the Key to Decolonizing Thought and Overcoming Nihilism.” Southwest Seminar in Continental Philosophy. May7-9, 2020. Held via Zoom. 2. “Becoming Un-Burdened: Nietzsche’s Relationship to the Transmission of History.” 11th Annual Texas A&M History Conference: The Challenge of Change. February 21–22, 2020. College Station, TX. 3. “Not Just Word Play: Spiel in Phenomenology.” Southwest Seminar in Continental Philosophy. May 29–June 1, 2019. Salt Lake City, UT. 4. “On the Way to Poetic Conversations: Heidegger and the Art of Dialogue.” Rocky Mountain Division of the American Society for Aesthetics.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy: Technology and Politics
    5 Units Contemporary Continental Philosophy: Technology and Politics Instructor: Javier Cardoza-Kon [email protected] In our contemporary world market dominated by economic consumerism it is becoming more evident that our dependency on the use of technological devices is becoming a totalizing relationship. This era in which students entering the university do not know of a time when personal computers and the internet were not around and to which everyone is connected to on hand-held devices, it is not hard to come to the conclusion that us “late moderns” have a serious and growing dependency on gadgets. Sixty years ago, Martin Heidegger and Herbert Marcuse recognized a growing dependency on devices, which evidenced significant social and political implications. These thinkers sought to articulate a critique of technology as a symptom of modernism. This class will explore these founding critiques as well as responses to them (including: Andrew Feenberg, Iain Thomson, Bert Dreyfus, Gianni Vattimo) and explore their relevance to our contemporary world of instant communications. Course Materials: Materials with an asterisk (**) will be made available at the Literary Guillotine. Those without an asterisk will be made available as electronic selections on ecommons (make sure to print out a copy of electronic materials to bring to course meetings). (suggested) Martin Heidegger, Nietzsche: Volumes 3 and 4. David Farrell Krell trans. (San Francisco: Harper, 1987) Martin Heidegger, The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays. William Lovitt trans. (New York: Harper and Row, 1977)** Gianni Vattimo, A Farewell to Truth. William McQuaig trans. (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011)** Herbert Marcuse, “Some Social Implications of Technology” in the Collected Papers of Herbert Marcuse: Technology, War, and Fascism Vol.
    [Show full text]