All the philosophers you mentioned above are merely scratching the surface and with some intuitive insights and reasonings into the deeper realities but they are unable to realize the truth of what drives them to the self-in-itself.odysseus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 8:50 pmNot from phenomenology, but more deeply into it.Husserl presented the famous, or infamous, phenomenological reduction. If you are interested in what drives these phenomenological theology theorists into religion, one has to see why Husserl thought the epoche was so important, and this is only possible through the rather tedious reading. It is not about a theoretical problem solved, but a method of going about thinking and, experiencing the world. Yes, it is an experience, that is, it requires an altering in the structure of one's thought, something Kant never dreamed of. It requires a "doing" in the field of experience, and this gets, frankly, only as alien and unfamiliar as the inquirer is capable. There is a reason why analytic philosophers cannot take this seriously: they are very good intellectuals, but not very good intuitively. They are appalled by the French lack of clarity, e.g., but it in this ideal clarity they are so adamant about that they fail to acknowledge the extraordinary threshold twilight of the human actuality that faces us. If one has no intuitive grasp of Being, the strange affectivity, the alien realization that we are somehow alien to this commonplace world and beneath the manifold presentation of things there is something mysterious and mystical. then one will not get far with the religious revelations the epoche can instill.Veritas Aequitas wrote
These are elements that is driving the rather earnest drive for the 'religious turn' from some of the writers in your Phenomenology and Religion. I downloaded and read the Introduction.
I am not interested in the details of those articles but more interested in the fundamental drive that drove them towards the 'religious turn' from phenomenology.
The drive is only revealed as one makes further inroads into the process of tearing down the years of normalcy built into us. The more we question things at the level of basic assumptions, the more everydayness falls away. One has to really want this, and this only comes from within, this drive, or, as Kierkegaard put it, that which in childhood is presented as wonder, a reaching beyond to be later understood as self alienation and anxiety. Heidegger thought the history of philosophy has filled our heads with very bad thinking about metaphysics, and wanted to rediscover what has been lost , this primordial wisdom. See also Phenomenology and Mysticism by Anthony Steinbach.
Alas, the tearing down of institutions is what reveals the drive, and this process lies in the reading of the details; that is, unless you want to climb a mountain and meditate. A very hard path, but then, so is philosophy.
In addition Husserl, Heidegger and the likes, did not introduce any practical approaches that are parallel to their philosophical theories.
As for Kiekegaard, he would recommend one to believe in God.
Even where Eastern philosophers has the intuition and established practices to deal with the problem, they are best using a black-box approach. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box
i.e. by trial and error on adjusting inputs and outputs but never understanding the actual process within the black box.
The pathway to understand that dreadful drive to the self-in-itself or soul-in-itself is via evolutionary psychology, neuro-psychology, neurosciences, and other related advance knowledge.
Note Andrew Newberg's Neuro-theology [should be neuro-spirituality] where is starting to dig into the brain.
There are loads of other researches that are going on in that direction.
As long at there is the element of 'theo' and some relation to an ultimate being, those involved are driven to align with the self-in-itself which according to Kant, Hume, Buddhists and others is an illusion.Well, it depends on what you mean by religion. Existential religion looks to the structure of experience to find theological truth, as with Rudolf Otto, Martin Buber, Emanuel Levinas, and so on. Kant is not an existentialist, but his moral rationalism is takes a step beyond mere the natural, good willing agency. If you look at, say, Eugene Fink's SIxth Meditation, he claims to being taking the Kantian mantle up, in search for the generative conditions latent in Husserl's epoche that produce phenomena (or something like that. This is right, but there is more to it). Not that this is explicitly religious, but possesses threshold analysis of phenomena.Kant demonstrated rationally in theory [not in practice] that is no substance to the self, i.e. no self-in-itself which is the same as Buddhism's core principles of 'anatta'.
That Kant made room for faith is not for religion [theology or others] at all but for the deliberation on morality and its grounding which has to be illusory but rational.
I note not all existentialists are into the 'theo' related matters.
Kant, Hume and other intellectuals only provided theories about the self and nothing practical to deal with its related problems.As to the no-self, I am inclined to say that there is, in the difference you note between practice and theory, that which sets Estern thinking from Kant on the matter of the self. No self in the East is a revelation of one's freedom from the constraints of an otherwise binding world of attachments that keep one in suffering. It is not really an ontology of the self, but an experience of liberation. For Kant, the matter is not about this at all.
The idea of no-self is Buddhism is about ontology, i.e. there is no ontological substance to the self.
From the Buddhist POV, once one is driven to align with a 'self' i.e. self-in-itself, there is an impulse of natural 'own_ness', possessiveness, attachment, desires, etc. where it is a natural instinct to keep it as long as possible till eternity - i.e. eternalism.
This drive for eternalism [to live forever] unfortunately is glaringly refuted with the very evident inevitable mortality, thus the emergence of a cognitive dissonance and its ensuing sufferings and seeking of consonance.
In seeking consonances, people seek it in various forms with the extreme of salvation and ending with a God & religion that command believers to kill non-believers.
Re Atla's misunderstanding of 'detachments' from attachment to things including the self [ego].
Detachment in the Buddhism and other effective spiritual sense, means detachment from blind emotional attachments to things, especially illusory things.
While detached from ignorant attachment, one is still interacting and entangling with reality within the Middle-Path toward optimization.