The Unique and the Ultimate: an Unorthodox Approach

Religious Studies: an International Journal Vol. 8, No. 1, January – June 2020 THE UNIQUE AND THE ULTIMATE: AN UNORTHODOX APPROACH VALERIE FICKERT Humboldt University of Berlin Fundamentally criticizing constructions of uniqueness in analytic philosophy as rather absolute and therefore too abstract, this paper prefers a more comparative approach to religion, drawing a parallel between the contemplative experience of Christian, Muslim and Jewish mystics such as Meister Eckhart and the deepness of Far-Eastern medita- tion in the tradition of Buddhism, Daoism and Confucianism. Actually, it is necessary to combine the term of the unique with the ultimate ground to stay directly in contact with the process of real life`s complexity in history as a part of the spatio-temporal con- tinuum (Einstein, Bourdieu). Broadly considering the historical, the ethical- transcultural and metaphysical-pragmatistic dimension of the unique and the ultimate together (including both more principal and more ontological aspects), creates an unorthodox approach to tackle the ubiquitous singularity discourses. Finally, uniqueness unites the multiple dimensions of life and, in a theological perspective, creates a new idea of joy between humanity and heaven. niqueness unites the multiple dimensions of our life: A really unique opportunity comes once in a lifetime. It is the perfect moment. On the other hand, the very unique or the U quite ultimate makes no sense: Both is logically impossible. It either is the ultimate aim or it is not. There is nothing in between. Since the core meaning of the unique1 and the ultimate embraces an absolute concept, they cannot be submodified. These absolute concepts obviously seem to reconstruct dimensions of the reality in which we live: When debating the problem of the unique and the ultimate, singularity and the non-comparable individual, we actually don`t refer to an abstract construction of reality, but to something really real. Otherwise absolute concepts would be nothing else but some kind of fiction. If there was absolutely no relationship to the radically different, in fact it would be the ab-solute, i.e. in a sense of mere isola- 1 See Oxford Dictionary of English (Second Edition 2005) 1927. ISSN 1352-4624 Valerie Fickert 2 tion or solipsism.2 Singularity simply wouldn`t exist as something real. When discussing the topic of singularity, we are already in the process of dealing with the radically different. However, if we actually have to deal with something that really exists, we have to cope with it: At the very beginning, the radically different might be found to be something strange and rather odd. In science-fiction movies the arrival of the aliens is performed as the most scaring scene, followed by a dramatic fighting over the whole universe. Ultimately the radically different is found surprising and threatening, but in the long run we have to find a way to deal with it as another part of our reality. Coping strategies are various: The arrival of the aliens is the most scaring performance. However, in a real-life situation we will rather find a field of increasing complexity than such a battle or Huntingtons “clash of civilizationsˮ.3 So we will have to develop a more differentiated approach for solving our problem. Pointing out clearly the problems of an ontological approach to reality, the construction of absolute uniqueness in conceptions following Karl Barth can not be re-constructed and understood completely without regard to the theological-historical dimension, i.e. the singularity of their situa- tional context after the disaster of World War II. Absolute concepts – the theological-historical dimension For finding problem-solving strategies it is necessary to intro- duce both principles of the unique and the ultimate in this context: The terms of the unique, singularity and the individual in them- selves refer to inner thoughts, i.e. uniqueness as a principle of interi- ority is always in danger of leading either into solipsism or isolation: The unique is neither the first nor the last of a series.4 So it is rather ab-solute, uniqueness therefore misleading when its meaning be- comes too abstract. In that respect John Hick`s hypothesis of the ultimate as “a single ultimate groundˮ and “the ultimate sourceˮ, 2 Cf. Valerie Fickert, Erfahrung und Offenbarung – Ingolf U. Dalferths Beitrag zur Debatte (Marburger Theologische Studien 124, Leipzig, 2016) 144,148. 3 Cf. Robert Cummings Neville, “Theory of Religion in a Pragmatic Philosophical Theology,ˮ in The Varieties of Transcendence (ed. Hermann Deuser, Hans Joas, Matthias Jung, and Magnus Schlette; New York: Fordham University Press, 2016) 270–288. 4 Just as Ingolf U. Dalferth explained preparing Claremont Conference 2018. 3 Religious Studies: an International Journal Vol. 8, No. 1, January – June 2020 “an ultimate transcendent reality which is the ground and source of everythingˮ is a critique of uniqueness misunderstood in a Barthian way as some kind of absolutism, excluding other religions.5 So I think, combination with the principle of the ultimate offers some advantages. As we have seen in the beginning, it also includes an absolute conception, but this term has been filled ontologically by Ne- ville: “The complex metaphysical hypothesis to be elaborated throughout the volumes of Philosophical Theology is that the ultimate reality of the world consists in its being created in all its spatiotem- poral complexity by an ontological act of creationˮ; “religion is not to be identified in truly concrete ways with religious traditions such as Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Daoism, Hinduism, Is- lam, and Judaism. Rather, religion is to be identified concretely with the ways by which human beings have engaged ultimate realities and seek to do so today. Philosophical Theology argues on philosophical grounds that there are indeed ultimate realities and ultimate dimensions of experience, and that people have responded to them, still do so, and will need to do so in the future, just as they respond to the realities of their climate, the geography of their habitats, and their social and personal situations. The responses to ultimacy vary by differences in culture and history, just as do the responses to climate, geography, and social and personal situationsˮ.6 In an abstract way it can be seen as the last of a series, at the same time it is non- comparable, opening up new horizons. So in my opinion, both principles together – the unique and the ultimate – are helpful for a better understanding. After all, I think combining the unique and the ultimate (including both more principal and more ontological aspects) creates maybe a quite unorthodox, but hopeful approach to tackle the ubiquitous singularity discourses. Some of the various coping strategies are illusory and therefore not successful. They give a false sense of security by introducing reductions of complexity, that way losing their grip to reality. The mo- tivation for such an approach comes from the challenge, uncertainty and fear, which leads directly into aggression and fundamentalism 5 John Hick, A Christian Theology of Religions. The Rainbow of Faiths (Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky, USA 1995) 69, 102, 82. 6 Neville, Ultimates: Philosophical Theology Volume One (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2013) 1, 5. Valerie Fickert 4 with rigid ethical considerations. In the long run we have to find new dimensions of our previous reality, if we really want to understand. When we see armies of warriors fighting aggressively against one another in science- fiction movies, we actually see a struggle against the overwhelming increase in complexity that always leads to a kind of reduction in reality. After all, it is our task to work against such reductions of thought, mind and speech. At the end of the day these reductions lead directly into isolation. Therefore this kind of coping strategies are from the very outset destined to failure, and only solipsism remains as a final result. Successful problem-solving strategies can only be found if both ontological and epistemological- hermeneutical dimensions are adequately considered. Otherwise, ignoring the dimensions of inner faith as part of a spatio-temporal contin- uum (Einstein, Bourdieu) we can either get lost as singular individu- als in abstract thoughts or as part of a multitude remain “dull in feelingˮ7. As soon as we leave false abstractions and closing of the mind behind, we make experiences, out of which something totally new can arise. Moments like this are very creative. We must free our minds to find new hypotheses, i.e. terms of reality, but we can never fully achieve it. There is no direct approach, no perfect concept. Neither is it possible for us to comprehend God in the sense that we find the perfect absolute concept, nor should we totally give up conceptual thinking. Our concepts are becoming increasingly differentiated and ever closer to a better understanding, but there is still a fundamental difference between ab-solute reality concepts and reality, which is simply greater than any attempt to model reality. The ultimate is the last and therefore radically different to all our previous concepts, God`s 7 Cf. Albert Einstein, The World As I See It, in A. Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, based on Mein Weltbild (ed. Carl Seelig; New York: Bonzana Books, 1954) 8–11. “The really valuable thing in the pageant of human life seems to me not the political state, but the creative, sentient individual, the personality; it alone creates the noble and the sublime, while the herd as such remains dull in thought and dull in feeling.ˮ “A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds: it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity.

Load more