DOCSLIB.ORG

Being Is Double

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Being is double Jean-Luc Marion and John Milbank on God, being and analogy Nathan Edward Lyons B. A. (Adv.) (Hons.) This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Philosophy School of Philosophy Australian Catholic University Graduate Research Office Locked Bag 4115 Fitzroy, Victoria 3065 1st March 2014 i ABSTRACT This thesis examines the contemporary dispute between philosopher Jean-Luc Marion and theologian John Milbank concerning the relation of God to being and the nature of theological analogy. I argue that Marion and Milbank begin from a shared opposition to Scotist univocity but tend in opposite directions in elaborating their constructive theologies. Marion takes an essentially Dionysian approach, emphasising the divine transcendence “beyond being” to such a degree as to produce an essentially equivocal account of theological analogy. Milbank, on the other hand, inspired particularly by Eckhart, affirms a strong version of the Thomist thesis that God is “being itself” and emphasises divine immanence to such a degree that the analogical distinction between created and uncreated being is virtually collapsed. Both thinkers claim fidelity to the premodern Christian theological tradition, but I show that certain difficulties attend both of their claims. I suggest that the decisive issue between them is the authority which should be granted to Heidegger’s account of being and I argue that it is Milbank’s vision of post-Heideggerian theological method which is to be preferred. I conclude that Marion and Milbank give two impressive contemporary answers to the ancient riddle of “double being” raised in the Anonymous Commentary on Plato’s “Parmenides,” a riddle which queries the relation between absolute First being and derived Second being. Their contrasting solutions cohere with the wider goals of their respective intellectual projects and correspond to the concerns of their respective interlocutors within Continental philosophy. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I owe a debt of gratitude to many people for their guidance, support and friendship over the two years that I worked on this thesis. My thanks go firstly to Nick Trakakis, Chris Hackett and Kevin Hart for steering my project, for their generosity in conversation and willingness to read such awful drafts. Thanks also to Jeff Hanson and Chris Jacobs-Vandegeer for wise and creative suggestions, and to John Milbank for so generously discussing his work and commenting on mine. I am grateful to the Australian Catholic University for granting me an APA scholarship, without which I could not have taken up full-time research, and especially to the ACU librarians who did wonders in retrieving so many obscure documents for me. James Piggott’s meticulous proof-reading and universal enthusiasm was a great help. I am particularly indebted to my friend Andrew Cooper, with whom I have wandered philosophical paths for some years now, for his intellectual companionship, constant encouragement, good advice and good humour—I look forward to many more years of thinking the great thoughts. Above all I am grateful to my wife, Kate. We married just a few weeks before I started this project and since then she has gracefully put up with innumerable dull monologues about being and beings, she has been a source of endless delight, support and inspiration, and she still explains my research better than I can. This thesis is dedicated to her. iii He himself is the only thing that really is, if you understand what I mean. - The Anonymous Commentary on Plato’s “Parmenides” iv CONTENTS Introduction: A debate about double being 1 1. God without being: An exposition of Jean-Luc Marion’s account of double being 21 A. Heidegger’s Second and Denys’ First 22 B. Marion’s doctrine of analogy 41 C. The perplexities of Marion’s Thomism 66 Conclusion: First without Second 75 2. God with being: An exposition of John Milbank’s account of double being 77 A. Milbank’s God “with” being 78 B. Milbank’s doctrine of analogy 86 C. First “beyond being”? 101 D. The perplexities of Milbank’s henology 108 Conclusion: Second with First 120 3. Disputes 123 Dispute #1: Analogical attribution 125 Dispute #2: Double being 140 Dispute #3: Theology after Heidegger 163 Conclusion: Interpreting the debate 183 Appendix 201 Bibliography 203 v ABBREVIATIONS Works by Jean-Luc Marion DMP On Descartes’ Metaphysical Prism: The Constitution and the Limits of Onto-Theo-Logy in Cartesian Thought. Translated by Jeffrey L. Kosky. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999. GWB God Without Being: Hors-Texte. Translated by Thomas A. Carlson. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995. I&D The Idol and Distance: Five Studies. Translated by Thomas A. Carlson. Fordham University Press, 2001. “TA&OT” “Thomas Aquinas and Onto-theo-logy.” In Mystics: Presence and Aporia, edited by Christian Sheppard and Michael Kessler. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003. Works by John Milbank BR Being Reconciled: Ontology and Pardon. London: Routledge, 2003. BSO Beyond Secular Order: The Representation of Being and the Representation of the People. Malden: Blackwell, 2014. SM The Suspended Middle: Henri De Lubac and the Debate Concerning the Supernatural. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. TST Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason. 2nd ed. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 2006. Vico 1 The Religious Dimension in the Thought of Giambattista Vico, 1668-1744, Part 1: The Early Metaphysics. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1991. Vico 2 The Religious Dimension in the Thought of Giambattista Vico, 1668-1744, Part 2: Language, Law and History. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1992. Works by Thomas Aquinas SCG Anderson, James F., Vernon J. Bourke, Anton Pegis, and Charles J. O’Neil, trans. Thomas Aquinas: On the Truth of the Catholic Faith: Summa Contra Gentiles. 4 vols. New York: Hanover House, 1955. vi ST Daniel J. Sullivan, ed. Thomas Aquinas: The Summa Theologica. Translated by The Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Williambenton: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1952. Introduction 1 INTRODUCTION A debate about double being Quite accidentally, in a remote Italian monastery in the early 1870’s, one of the most curious texts in the history of Western thought was discovered. Unknown for millennia, without an autograph and only partially preserved, it became known as the Anonymous Commentary on Plato’s “Parmenides.1 Its fragmentary palimpsests were in hand for just a few decades—long enough to produce a critical edition of the Greek text—before slipping history’s grasp once again when they were destroyed by fire at the University of Turin in 1904.2 The anonymous third century text is particularly intriguing because it appears to be the first moment in the Western tradition where God is identified with being, overturning the Platonic orthodoxy of the One ἐπέκεινα τῆς οὐσίας,3 and anticipating the scholastic theologies of esse.4 The final sentences of 1 Though various possibilities have been floated, the author of the text remains unknown. Pierre Hadot’s watershed argument for Porphyry in Porphyre et Victorinus (Études augustiniennes, 1968) has been criticised but remains influential. Some now argue for a pre-Plotinian author, while others judge that the text is too ambiguous and best left anonymous. See Kevin Corrigan “Platonism and Gnosticism: The Anonymous Commentary on the Parmenides, Middle or Neoplatonic?,” in Gnosticism and Later Platonism: Themes, Figures, and Texts, ed. John Turner and Ruth Majercik (Society of Biblical Literature, 2000) and the essays collected in John Turner and Kevin Corrigan, eds., Plato’s Parmenides and Its Heritage Vol. 1, History and Interpretation from the Old Academy to Later Platonism and Gnosticism (Leiden: Brill, 2011) for a thorough discussion of the scholarship. Whatever the particulars of authorship, the fact that the earliest identification of God with being was almost certainly the conjecture of a pagan philosopher is an irony that will not be lost on readers of Étienne Gilson. 2 See Gerald Bechtle, The Anonymous Commentary on Plato’s “Parmenides” (Bern: Verlag P. Haupt, 1999), 17–21 for a brief account of the textual history. 3 See John Rist, “Mysticism and Transcendence in Later Neoplatonism,” Hermes 92, no. 2 (1964): 213–225; Rein Undusk, “Infinity on the Threshold of Christianity: The Emergence of a Positive Introduction 2 Fragment V make the novel proposal: Behold whether Plato does not seem to speak in riddles, because the One, which is ‘beyond substance’ and beyond being [ἐπέκεινα οὐσίας καί ὄντος] on the one hand is neither being nor substance nor activity [ἐνέργεια], but on the other hand acts and is itself pure act, so that it is also the being before being [τὸ εἶναι τὸ πρὸ τοῦ ὄντος]. By participating in it the other One receives a derivative being [ἐκκλινόμενον τὸ εῖναι], which indeed is to participate in being. Thus, being is double [διττὸν τὸ εῖναι]: the one exists prior to being, the other is brought forth from the One which is beyond, the absolute being [τοῦ εἶναι τὸ ἀπόλυτον] and as it were ‘idea’ of being, participating in which some other One has become existent, with which the being which is produced by it is yoked...5 The Commentator is wrestling with the “riddle” implicit in Plato’s corpus concerning the kind of existence enjoyed by the first principle. On the one hand—and here the Commentator alludes to the Good beyond being in the Republic VI and the first hypothesis of the Parmenides (137c-)—Plato says that the One must be located outside Concept Out of Negativity,” Trames 13, no. 4 (December 2009): 328–36; Mark J. Edwards, “Christians and the Parmenides,” in Plato’s Parmenides and Its Heritage Vol. 2, Its Reception in Neoplatonic, Jewish, and Christian Texts., ed. John Turner and Kevin Corrigan (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 189–98. Some readers also find a certain identification of the One with being in Plotinus (who may or may not predate the A.C.)—see, for example, Kevin Corrigan, “Essence and Existence in the Enneads,” in The Cambridge Companion to Plotinus, ed.
Recommended publications
  • Fyodorov's Meontology

    Fyodorov's Meontology

    III. NON-STANDARD TRAITS OF 20TH CENTURY AND RECENT PHILOSOPHY 157 Fyodorov’s Meontology Myroslav Feodosijevič Hryschko (University of Ljubljana) Abstract The text treats the philosophy of Nikolai Fyodorovich Fyodorov as a meontology; that is, as a metaphysics irreducible to ontology. This treatment starts from a certain non-ontological symptom within Fyodorov’s texts and develops two philosophemes found in The Philosophy of the Common Task: The Task qua immortality and resurrection, and Fyodorov’s shift of ontol- ogy from the question “Why does the existing exist?” to “Why do the living die?” Resurrection and immortality are not developed as some ethical re- joinder to the latter question but rather, both philosophemes are posited to- gether as constitutive of a prospective Fyodorovian meontology. Using the contemporary speculative anti-humanism of Badiou, Brassier, Grant, Meil- lassoux, etc., and the anthropic-transcendental lineage of Kant and Heideg- ger as points of both accession and tension, the possibility of resurrection and immortality coupled with the death of being suggests the excision of any constancy or necessity to ontology, to both Being or beings, thus entail- ing the rudiments of such a meontology. 1. Introduction The metabasis eis allo genos that is Fyodorov’s transposition of the ontological question “Why does the existing exist?” to “Why do the living die?”1 is not a vitalism; it is not an appropriation of ontology in terms of a theoretical concern accorded to what may be provisionally formulated as a problem of the organic. This misprision is coextensive to the misprision concerning the decisive status of resurrection and immortality in The Phi- losophy of the Common Task.
  • Žižek and Lacanian Henology—With a “Silent Partner”

    Žižek and Lacanian Henology—With a “Silent Partner”

    ISSN 1751-8229 Volume Twelve, Number Two Žižek and Lacanian Henology—With a “Silent Partner” Kenji Nobutomo, Kagoshima University, Japan Abstract This article aims to clarify the meaning of henology for Lacan and Žižek. Žižek apparently rejects Neoplatonic way of thinking, but by considering Lacanian Henology through its origin, Etienne Gilson, Lacanian henology and Žižek’s Hegelian reading of the One become converged. Both of them think the movement of the One from one principle and its two aspects. The principle is that the One gives something that it does not have, and it corresponds to Lacanian definition of love. Regarding its two aspects, the first one is the logical necessity that generates necessarily the One, and the second is the logical contingency that generates contingently the surplus element. By this, we can clarify the theoretical development of each period of Lacan. In early Lacan, henology was a logic that ties his “the Symbolic” and Freudian Death drive. In middle Lacan, his main concern was the mathematical logic as the logic of the Id, and henology became the generative logic of the subject of enunciation or the subject of the jouissance. But at the same time, this movement produces as a co-product a inassimilable remainder, “object a” with the subject of signifiant. In late Lacan, by virtue of the “necessary” movement of the One and its “contingent” co-product, the universe of the discourse became indeterminate, undecidable, “not-all,” which means for Lacan “the contingent.” This characteristic became the logic of Lacanian “sexuation.” 1. Introduction: What is Henology? In a session in 1971, Jacques Lacan used the term hénologie to describe his “analytic discourse” and its relation to the classical philosophical notion of “the One.” The annoying thing, is that when you proceed, as I have just said in this writing, that it is a matter of proceeding, namely, to envisage from a discourse what plays the function of the One in it, what do I do from time to time? If you will allow me this neologism what I do is “Henology”.
  • The Conversion of Skepticism in Augustine's Against the Academics the Conversion of Skepticism in Augustine"S Against the Academics

    The Conversion of Skepticism in Augustine's Against the Academics the Conversion of Skepticism in Augustine"S Against the Academics

    THE CONVERSION OF SKEPTICISM IN AUGUSTINE'S AGAINST THE ACADEMICS THE CONVERSION OF SKEPTICISM IN AUGUSTINE"S AGAINST THE ACADEMICS BY BERNARD NEWMAN WILLS, B.A., M.A. A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor ofPhilosophy McMaster University C Copyright by Bernard Newman Wills DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (2003) McMaster University (Religious Studies) Hamilton, Ontario TITLE: The Conversion of Skepticism in Augustine's Against the Academics AUTHOR: Bernard Newman Wills, B.A., M.A. SUPERVISOR: Dr. P. Travis Kroeker NUMBER OF PAGES: v, 322 ABSTRACT This thesis examines Augustine's relation to Academic Skepticism through a detailed commentary on the dialogue Against the Academics. In it is demonstrated the significance of epistemological themes for Augustine and their inseparability from practical and religious concerns. It is also shown how these issues unfold within the logic ofAugustine's trinitarianism, which informs the argument even ofhis earliest works. This, in turn, demonstrates the depth of the young Augustine's engagement with Christian categories in works often thought to be determined wholly, or almost wholly, by the logic of Plotinian Neo-Platonism. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Travis Kroeker for his advice and considerable patience: my readers Dr. Peter Widdicome and Dr. Zdravko Planinc: Dr. David Peddle for several useful suggestions and general encouragement: Dr. Dennis House for teaching me the art of reading dialogues: Mr. Danny Howlett for his editorial assistance: Grad Students and Colleagues at Memorial University of Newfoundland and, in a category all their own, my longsuffering wife Jean and three boisterous children Kristin, Jeremy and Thomas.
  • Trinity, Subordination, and Heresy: a Reply to Mark Edwards

    Trinity, Subordination, and Heresy: a Reply to Mark Edwards

    2020 TheoLogica An International Journal for Philosophy of Religion and Philosophical Theology S. I. CONCILIAR TRINITARIANISM DOI: https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v4i2.52323 Trinity, Subordination, and Heresy: A Reply to Mark Edwards R. T. MULLINS University of Edinburgh [email protected] Abstract: In this article, I offer some analytic reflections on Mark Edward's paper, "Is Subordinationism a Heresy?" I shall discuss the desiderata for a conciliar Trinitarian theology, the divine essence, and the different notions of subordination that Edwards identifies. Then I shall consider two arguments that certain accepted, conciliar notions of subordination lead to heretical notions of subordination. Thus raising the worry that conciliar Trinitarian theology might involve some internal incoherence between the homoousios doctrine and the subordination of the Son and Holy Spirit to the Father. Keywords: Trinity, subordination, eternal generation, analytic theology Mark Edwards has provided us with an excellent overview of the different notions of Trinitarian subordination throughout parts of church history. Some readers will be surprised to find that certain notions of subordination are affirmed in conciliar Trinitarian thought, whilst others are not. I for one greatly appreciate the clarity that Edwards brings to this issue in his essay. His essay is not intended to be historically exhaustive, but rather offers snapshots into different time periods. Edwards starts his survey with the biblical material before moving on to the debates leading up to the Council of Nicaea, and the continuation of those debates in the aftermath of the Council. After this, Edwards takes a glance at the Protestant Reformation, and then offers an interesting discussion of the Trinitarian thought of John Milton, Ralph Cudworth, and George Bull.
  • Metaphysics Today and Tomorrow*

    Metaphysics Today and Tomorrow*

    1 Metaphysics Today and Tomorrow* Raphaël Millière École normale supérieure, Paris – October 2011 Translated by Mark Ohm with the assistance of Leah Orth, Jon Cogburn, and Emily Beck Cogburn “By metaphysics, I do not mean those abstract considerations of certain imaginary properties, the principal use of which is to furnish the wherewithal for endless dispute to those who want to dispute. By this science I mean the general truths which can serve as principles for the particular sciences.” Malebranche Dialogues on Metaphysics and Religion 1. The interminable agony of metaphysics Throughout the twentieth century, numerous philosophers sounded the death knell of metaphysics. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Rudolf Carnap, Martin Heidegger, Gilbert Ryle, J. L. Austin, Jacques Derrida, Jürgen Habermas, Richard Rorty, and, henceforth, Hilary Putnam: a great many tutelary figures have extolled the rejection, the exceeding, the elimination, or the deconstruction of first philosophy. All these necrological chronicles do not have the same radiance, the same seriousness, nor the same motivations, but they all agree to dismiss the discipline, which in the past was considered “the queen of the sciences”, with a violence at times comparable to the prestige it commanded at the time of its impunity. Even today, certain philosophers hastily spread the tragic news with contempt for philosophical inquiry, as if its grave solemnity bestowed upon it some obviousness. Thus, Franco Volpi writes: ‘Grand metaphysics is dead!’ is the slogan which applies to the majority of contemporary philosophers, whether continentals or of analytic profession. They all treat metaphysics as a dead dog.1 In this way, the “path of modern thought” would declare itself vociferously “anti- metaphysical and finally post-metaphysical”.
  • For Situating Contemporary Freedom: a Doull Reader Introduction: James

    For Situating Contemporary Freedom: a Doull Reader Introduction: James

    Neoplatonism and Contemporary Constructions and Deconstructions of Modern Subjectivity a response to J. A. Doull’s “Neoplatonism and the Origins of the older Modern Philosophy” for Situating Contemporary Freedom: A Doull Reader Introduction: James Doull, Étienne Gilson and George Grant Not many in Canada can be compared to James Doull as the creator of a philosophical school based in an interpretation of the whole history of Western philosophy. When one adds that his school has continued to reproduce itself for a half a century through several generations of students, that it remains central to the life of vibrant institutions, and that this power of regeneration stems from its union of a linguistically and philologically disciplined reading of texts with a total system of philosophy, Professor Doull’s accomplishment is virtually incomparable in our country. Only Étienne Gilson’s creation of the Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies in Toronto and George Grant’s unparalleled drawing of an extraordinarily diverse and large group of Canadians into philosophical reflection on their culture and its future come to mind. Doull and Gilson have in common that they unite textual erudition with a philosophical project and that institutions and generations of scholar disciples carried on their work. But in Canada the institutions with which Gilson is associated have failed or their scholarly work has ceased to serve his philosophical and theological enterprise. Moreover, and this is important for the essay of Doull to which I am responding, the texts and Gilson’s interpretative scheme ultimately fall away from one another because of Gilson’s opposition to Neoplatonism.i While the criticism of Neoplatonism unites them, our two philosophical historians separate sharply over its place and character.
  • On Reading the Bible As Scripture, Encountering the Church

    On Reading the Bible As Scripture, Encountering the Church

    Perichoresis Volume 18.5 (2020): 67–86 DOI: 10.2478/perc-2020-0029 ON READING THE BIBLE AS SCRIPTURE, ENCOUNTERING THE CHURCH * STEVEN NEMES Fuller Theological Seminary ABSTRACT. As an exercise in the ‘theology of disclosure’, the present essay proposes a kind of phenomenological analysis of the act of reading the Bible as Scripture with the goal of bringing to light the theoretical commitments which it implicitly demands. This sort of analysis can prove helpful for the continuing disputes among Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox insofar as it is relevant for one of the principal points of controversy between them: namely, the rela- tionship between Scripture, Tradition, and Church as theological authorities. It proceeds by analyzing both the objective and subjective ‘poles’ of the act, and it illuminates the presence of the Church and her Tradition on both sides. The Church—i.e., the community of God’s peo- ple—is both that which is immediately encountered in the text, as well as the factor which ena- bles scriptural reading in the first place. The article terminates with an application of the in- sights of the preceding discussion to the controversy about icons. KEYWORDS: phenomenology of Scripture, Tradition, Bible, ecclesiology, icons Preliminary Remarks on the Phenomenology of Scripture The quincentenary of the Protestant Reformation invites careful reflection on persistent divisions which characterize Christian existence in the modern world. Though typically the disputes between Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox are often addressed hermeneutically, through the careful inter- pretation of particular critical passages, there is a prior question to be an- swered, one which promises fruit for the resolution of the seemingly inter- minable exegetical debates.
  • Ois Laruelle

    Ois Laruelle

    Frans;ois Laruelle --- and collaborators --- Dictio nary of Non-Philosophy -- translated by Taylor Adkins I Univocal -- Fran\:ois Laruelle ------ and collaborators -----­ To ny Brachet. Gilbert Kieffer, Laurent Leroy, Da niel Nicolet, Anne-Fran�oise Schmid, Serge Valdinoci Dictio nary of Non-Philosophy translated by Taylor Adkins I Univocal ---- DJCT!ONNAIREDE LA NON-PHILOSOPH!Eby Fran�ois Laruelle ©Editions Kime, 1998 Translated by Taylor Adkins as Dictionary ofNon-Philosophy First Edition Minneapolis©2013, Univocal Publishing Published by Univocal 123 North 3rd Street, #202 Minneapolis, MN 55401 No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including phorocopying, recording or any other information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. Thanks to John David Ebert and Ben Woodard Designed & Printed by Jason Wagner Distributed by the University of Minnesota Press ISBN 9781937561130 Library of Congress Control Number 2013939530 TA BLE OF CONTENTS Translator's Introduction .......................................... .....................9 Preface to the English Language Edition...................... ................. 15 Preface .........................................................................................19 Theory of the Non-Philosophical Dictionary....................... .......23 Auto-position .......................... .....................................................39 Being-in-One (Being-according-to-the-One)...............................
  • A Conversation with Jonathan Edwards and William Alston

    A Conversation with Jonathan Edwards and William Alston

    Towards a Model of Indwelling: A Conversation with Jonathan Edwards and William Alston Ray S. Yeo Carolina Graduate School of Divinity Abstract: In this paper I attempt to provide a model for understanding the theological, psychological and metaphysical dimensions of the Spirit’s indwelling in sanctifying grace by synthesizing Jonathan Edwards’ theological psychology with William Alston’ model of indwelling. However, despite its promise, the Edwards-Alston synthesis faces substantial difficulties associated with a literal and direct union between divinity and humanity. Nevertheless, the difficulties could be avoided if we take the mediatory role of Christ’s humanity more seriously and conceive of indwelling grace as an infusion of Christ’s human unitive drive through the Holy Spirit’s abiding presence within his people. 1. Introduction Central to the thought of Jonathan Edwards is his theologically sophisticated psychology of grace or what is sometimes called his “religious psychology of the heart” (Walton 2002, 5).1 Discussion of this important subject can be found not only in his famous Treatise Concerning Religious Affections but also throughout his vast corpus of writings including his sermons and miscellanies entries. Edwards’ understanding of the psychological functioning of grace may not be entirely original; much of what he says can be found in some form in his Puritan and Protestant forbearers.2 However, his treatment of the subject is unsurpassed in the Puritan literature in terms of the level of precision, thoroughness and systematic sophistication.3 Hence, it remains one of the deepest and most fecund theological psychologies of grace in the Protestant tradition and the heart of his account comes 1 Harold Simonson (2004, 5) claims that the notion of the sense of the heart “summarizes Edwards’s whole system of thought”.
  • Hegel, Sade, and Gnostic Infinities

    Hegel, Sade, and Gnostic Infinities

    Radical Orthodoxy: Theology, Philosophy, Politics, Vol. 1, Number 3 (September 2013): 383-425. ISSN 2050-392X HEGEL, SADE, AND GNOSTIC INFINITIES Cyril O’Regan lavoj Žižek not only made the impossible possible when he articulated an inner relation between Kant and de Sade, but showed that the impossible was necessary.1 The impossibility is necessary because of the temporal contiguity of thinkers who articulate two very different S versions of the Enlightenment, who variously support autonomy, and who feel called upon to take a stance with respect to Christian discourse and practice. As the demand for articulation is pressed within a horizon of questioning, proximally defined by the Lacanian problematic of self-presentation and horizonally by Adorno and Horkheimmer’s dialectic of the Enlightenment, Žižek would be the first to agree that his investigation is probative. One could press much more the issue of whether the logic of Kant’s view on radical evil is in fact that of the demonic, while much more could be said about the Enlightenment’s inversion in the ‘mad’ discourse of Sade and the relation- difference between both discourses and the Christian discourses that are objects of critique. However important it would be to complete this task, it seems even more necessary to engage the question of the relation between Hegel and Sade. More necessary, since not only is such a relation left unexplored while hinted at 1 See Žižek’s essay ‘On Radical Evil and Other Matters,’ in Tarrying with the Negative: Kant, Hegel, and the Critique of Ideology (Durham: Duke University Press, 1993), pp.
  • What Does It Mean to Grieve the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 4:30)? 27 Joshua M

    What Does It Mean to Grieve the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 4:30)? 27 Joshua M

    1 Spring 2019 • Volume 16, Number 1 Spring 2019 • Vol. 16, No. 1 The Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary Editor-in-Chief 2019 EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Charles S. Kelley, ThD Bart Barber, PhD Executive Editor First Baptist Church of Farmersville, Texas Steve W. Lemke, PhD Rex Butler, PhD Editor & BCTM Director New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary Adam Harwood, PhD Research Assistant Nathan Finn, PhD Hoyt Denton North Greenville University Book Review Editors Eric Hankins, PhD Archie England, PhD First Baptist Fairhope, Fairhope, Alabama Dennis Phelps, PhD Malcolm Yarnell, PhD Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary The Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry is a research institute of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. The seminary is located at 3939 Gentilly Blvd., New Orleans, LA 70126. BCTM exists to provide theological and ministerial resources to enrich and energize ministry in Baptist churches. Our goal is to bring together professor and practitioner to produce and apply these resources to Baptist life, polity, and ministry. The mission of the BCTM is to develop, preserve, and communicate the distinctive theological identity of Baptists. The Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry is published semiannually by the Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry. Copyright ©2019 The Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. All Rights Reserved. This peridiocal is indexed in the ATLA Religion Database® (ATLA RDB®), http://www.atla.com. CONTACT BCTM (800) 662-8701, ext. 8074 [email protected] www.baptistcenter.com SUBMISSIONS Visit the Baptist Center website for submission guidelines. TABLE OF CONTENTS Editorial Introduction 1 Adam Harwood The Role, Purpose, and Nature of Women according to Martin Luther 2 Joe Early Jr.
  • The Friend 2, 1 (2000), 18-21

    The Friend 2, 1 (2000), 18-21

    James Doull, Étienne Gilson and George Grant on Modernity and Platonism The Friend 2, 1 (2000), 18-21. During this year two young academics, who teach at the University of King’s College in Halifax and who regard James Doull as their master in philosophy, Neil Robertson and David Peddle, are editing a festschrift in his honour, Situating Contemporary Freedom: A Doull Reader. The reader will be published by the University of Toronto Press and will consist of articles selected from Doull’s publications together with responses from his former students and colleagues. My own contribution to the collection will be a critical consideration of his “Neoplatonism and the Origins of the older Modern Philosophy” and is entitled: “Neoplatonism and Contemporary Constructions and Deconstructions of Modern Subjectivity.” My essay begins with a comparison between James Doull, Étienne Gilson and George Grant on modernity and Platonism. Here, I adapt that introduction for The Friend. James Alexander Doull, the only surviving member of my trio, comes from the same Pictou County Nova Scotia roots as George Grant. He studied at Dalhousie University, the University of Toronto, Harvard and Oxford. Like Grant, after World War 2 and Oxford, Doull taught at Dalhousie University. Grant came as Head (and only member) of the Philosophy Department. Doull was in Classics where he taught for almost 40 years, most of that time as Head (He was briefly Head of Philosophy as well after Grant left for York and McMaster). Both the Classics Department at Dalhousie and King’s College remain strongly under his influence. Not many in Canada can be compared to James Doull as the creator of a philosophical school based in an interpretation of the whole history of Western philosophy.