Tyler Roberts on Religion and Critique

“Reverence as Critical Responsiveness: Between Philosophy and Religion”

Tyler Roberts, Grinnell College

Tuesday May 12, 4:30

Swift Hall, Common Room

Abstract:

A major task of a future philosophy of religion will be to contribute to a post-critical ethos of participation. By “post-critical,” I mean that such a contribution requires philosophers of religion to reimagine the critical relationship between philosophy and religion. By “participation,” I gesture with some hesitation and much qualification to philosophical and religious visions centered on conforming mind and body to God, cosmos, reason or some other fundamental reality through active intellection and receptive contemplation. Today, the idea that we can identify such a reality is properly suspect and so subject to various critical procedures that expose the historical and social construction that produces this “reality.” But even if we agree that it is  imperative to submit all claims for what is ultimately real and authoritative to historicist and other forms of criticism, the question of how we hold together incisive critical thinking and affirmative attachment to or participation in existence remains. Philosophers of religion, because they work at a site of crossing between the philosophical and critical, on the one hand, and the religious and participatory, on the other, have a crucial role to play in working through this question. One starting point is William Desmond’s idea of a “two- way intermediation or communication between religion and philosophy, not just a singular direction from religion to reason.” From here, my paper considers religious dispositions or virtues such as gratitude and reverence as critical disciplines of attention and thoughtful vigilance. I thus seek to counter the modern, but by now well-worn idea that where philosophy and other forms of modern thought are critical, religious thought, grounded in such dispositions, is not.

Dalmar Hussein on Identity and Ideology in Contemporary Somalia

Somalia in Context: Ideology, Clan Identity, and the Rise of Al-Shabaab in Contemporary Somalia

Dalmar Hussein

Friday, May 1st, 4:30pm

Swift 201

Reception at Ida Noyes Pub to Follow

Abstract:

Surveying Africa-oriented news media and political science literature  for possible causes of Somalia’s cultural and economic deterioration will yield three explanations: the civil war of 1991-1992, warlord dominance following the collapse of the federal government in 1991, and the influx of foreign-born “Jihadists” in the aftermath of American-led, post-9/11 incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq. By themselves, the explanations are not wrong, but they tend to miss something crucial: the social and political roles that clan identity plays in Somalia. By downplaying or ignoring clan identity, accounts about what has caused or accelerated social collapse – as well as proposed remedies for it – are partial at best, missing how clan has been manipulated by various political actors in Somalia to alter the way Somalis view themselves and their neighbors. The aim of my paper is to reintegrate clan (and clan-based identity politics) into the discussion and provide a richer account of the problems Somalia faces today.

 

Matthew Peterson on Jewish Ethics

Matthew Peterson (MA Student, Divinity)

“Between Halakhah and the Other: Navigating the Scope of Jewish Ethics”

Tuesday, April 14th, Noon

Swift 201

Abstract:

One recurring theme in modern Jewish thought has been the scope of its ethics. That is, upon whom can Jewish ethics make demands, whom can it address, and who may embody Jewish ethics appropriately? To address these questions, this paper puts into dialogue two figures who stand at opposite poles on the spectrum of concern. Emmanuel Levinas, a Jewish philosopher, offers an anthropocentric vision of Judaism that is about responding to the demands of the human Other and is therefore, I argue, universal. In contrast Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, a philosophically-informed authority on Jewish law, offers a fundamentally theocentric view of Judaism, where to be Jewish is to respond to the call of the God of Abraham by following the laws of halakhah, and in this sense I argue its ethics are particular.

Two different positions come out of this conversation: a broad appeal to moral authority grounded in a religiously informed anthropology, and a traditionalist, identity-defined response rooted in religious law. While both positions support moral authority over autonomy, their divergence suggest the need for a more careful distinction between ethics as teleological and concerned with aims, and morals as deontological and concerned with norms. This clarification illustrates a common vision of Jewish ethics as aiming to create a better world through service to others with God in view, yet it also makes apparent two phenomenologically distinct ideas of the Jewish moral life. For Lichtenstein, Jewish morality is only incumbent upon him who is willing to live out the minutiae of a wholly Jewish existence, while Levinas sees Judaism as offering moral resources with which anyone can productively engage. Ultimately, at stake are questions about the applicability of moral norms, their relation to ethical frameworks, and a concern with incorporating tradition into modernity without losing that which constitutes the tradition as such.

Benjamin Y. Fong (Assistant Collegiate Prof., Social Sciences, UChicago) on Starbuck’s and James’ psychology of religion

Benjamin Y. Fong

Harper Fellow and Assistant Collegiate Professor of Social Sciences (University of Chicago)

“Freak Stuff or Protestant Stock-in-Trade?: Edwin Diller Starbuck’s The Psychology of Religion in Light of its Influence on William James

Tuesday, February 3, 4:30pm (Location TBA)

Abstract:

“In this paper, my aim is to articulate the nature of William James’ debt to and divergence from the ideas of his student Edwin Diller Starbuck through an analysis of the latter’s The Psychology of Religion conducted in light of the “Conversion” lectures in the Varieties of Religious Experience.  As I will demonstrate, The Psychology of Religion was not simply “source material” for James, who actively edited Starbuck’s work as he presented it.  My hope is contribute to a fuller understanding of James’ Varieties while introducing the work of a mostly forgotten figure in the history of the study of religion, but it is perhaps more importantly to show that the psychology of religion in America, at its inception, was not defined by a single trajectory.”

Anil Mundra (Divinity PhD Student in Philosophy of Religions) on Classical Indian Philosophy of Religions

Anil Mundra (Divinity PhD Student in Philosophy of Religions)

“Argument, Agreement, and Authority in Classical Indian Philosophy of Religions”

Tuesday, Jan 20, 4:30 PM, Swift 201

Abstract:

“Situations of religious diversity seem to raise special epistemological demands. How does one establish epistemic authority in the face of fundamental disagreement? In India, where religious diversity has been a fact of life for all of recorded history, interreligious debate and disagreement was formative of a number of interesting philosophical solutions to such problems. The Jains, best known for their ethics of non-violence, took the problem of disagreement so seriously as to ask: How can one be free of contradiction in the face of religious rivals, even as those rivals contradict each other? I will examine how a Jain locus classicus attempts to solve this problem through a dialectically synthetic epistemology that stands out in the Indian panorama, and remains provocative as well as potentially appealing to contemporary sensibilities.”

 

Pamela Sue Anderson (Oxford) on the Future of the Philosophy of Religion

Pamela Sue Anderson

Professor of Modern European Philosophy of Religion, Oxford University

presents

“Concepts to Live By:

Change for the Future of Philosophy of Religion”

Wednesday, January 7th, 2015

12pm

Swift Hall Common Room, University of Chicago

 

 

Suggested pre-workshop reading:

“Editorial: In Guise of a Miracle,” Pamela Sue Anderson. From Sophia (2014) 53:171-181.

&

“Restoring Faith in Reason,” Pamela Sue Anderson.  From Re-visioning Gender in Philosophy of Religion (Ashgate, 2012), chapter 6 (pp. 113-138).

&

“Encouraging a Thoughtful Love of Life: Pamela Sue Anderson and Gillian Howe on Practising Philosophy,” Patrice Haynes.  From Sophia (2014) 53:193-214.

The Workshop on the Philosophy of Religions is pleased to welcome Oxford’s Pamela Sue Anderson to the University of Chicago on Wednesday, January 7th, 2015.  Professor Anderson will be discussing the future of philosophical reflection on religion and the methodological challenges that the future poses. For instance, do we need to create new concepts?  This would be to replace the dominant focus on traditional theism and the omni-perfect God.  But it is also to raise questions about the social and material locatedness of the concepts which have been used, as if they were inclusive and ‘neutral.’  Another example of where this conceptual issue could take our discussion is whether we should be focusing more on religious practices; and if so, how do we ensure that these practices are not mystifying; that is, empty of content?

Philosophy of Religions and Theology and Ethics Workshops Co-sponsored Event: Evan Kuehn on post-Kantian Theology

Evan Kuehn (PhD Candidate, Theology, UChicago)

“From Postulates of Reason to Doctrines of Faith: On Doing Theology After Kant”

Dec 9th, 12:00pm – 1:20pm (room TBA)

Russell Johnson (PhD Student, Philosophy of Religions) will respond

Lunch will be served

Abstract:

This paper will attempt to lay out some theses for the task of doing theology after Kant and in the spirit of his philosophical work. In particular, I am interested in the problem that faces any would-be Kantian theologian of how to offer a theological account of things like God, or the immortality of the soul, or human freedom. Kant sees these sorts of ideas as necessary postulates of reason which can, however, never become objects of knowledge for us. Yet in many cases, theologians do not consider ideas like these from such an epistemological remove. Ideas which according to Kant are merely regulatory for theoretical knowledge and at most objects of faith are, for theological inquiry, often treated as objects of knowledge. Can theology engage these objects (systematically, critically, and theoretically) as objects of theological knowledge without thereby abandoning the original Kantian framework of human knowledge limited to the categories of understanding? And what resources are available within Kant’s Critiques for dealing with these theological ideas as objects of theological knowledge?

 

Zeke Goggin on Selfhood in Hegel’s PhG

Zeke Goggin (Div School, Philosophy of Religions PhD Student)

“Selfhood and Sacrifice in Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit

Wed, Nov 19th, 4:30 PM

Swift 208

Abstract:

In this paper I argue that Hegel’s account of self-consciousness marks a break in the phenomenological method of “immanent” criticism, and that this is instructive for the self/no-self debate in that it points the way to a concept of socially achieved selfhood which would not constitute an exclusive disjunction between conceptions of the self as real, substantial, and enduring self-identity on the one hand, and the self as transient, contingent, and epiphenomenal on the other. Both “self” and “no-self” would be moments of the concept in the process of adjudicating claims about what selves are as well as shaping them in concrete social practices –particularly those which have a renunciative character, and which Hegel describes in terms of sacrifice. I then consider possible criticisms of Hegel’s position, namely those which we might draw from Heidegger’s analysis of temporality and those explicitly given in Derrida’s account of mechanical memory and dialectical “conservation.” I will finally argue that Hegel’s account of ritual and repetition provides a rejoinder to their critiques which may serve to reconcile their objections to a Hegelian intention. I conclude by suggesting that the “sacrificial” and ritualistic character of these social processes –which performatively resist an exclusive disjunction between the positive and negative assessments of the epistemic and ontological status of selfhood –serve to locate Philosophy of Religions, specifically, in a unique and privileged position with regard to the question of selfhood.

Wednesday, November 5 Philosophy of Religions and Global Christianities Joint Workshop and Pub Night!

Hannah Roh (Divinity PhD Student in the Philosophy of Religions):

“Interrogating Cross-Cultural Inquiry in Philosophy of Religions:  A Case Study of Self and Agency in Modern Korean Christianity”

Swift 208 – 4:30pm, adjourning afterwards to The Pub at Ida Noyes

 

Abstract:

Cross-cultural inquiries of the self in philosophy of religions can proceed to frame the philosophical distinction between ‘self’ and ‘no-self’ as a cultural distinction—between some Western religious traditions and some Eastern religious traditions. One of the more obvious examples that can apply this cultural analysis is the comparative study of the Christian self as part of the Western tradition and the Buddhist non-self as an Eastern practice. What kinds of philosophical and political problems emerge, however, when one religious tradition is historically saturated with cultural dissonance and multiplicity—that is, when the cultural encounter or dissonance between ‘East’ and ‘West’ occurs not between religious traditions, but within (and sometimes, because of) one religious tradition? When the Orthodox Church emerges as a distinct Christian tradition in the East? Or when contemporary Buddhist practices take root in North America or Europe, or when Christianity spreads (through missionary or colonial activity or for other complex reasons) over the East? Defending the significance of culturally and politically embodied historical moments, this paper considers the philosophical complexities of culturally heterogeneous religious traditions by undertaking a specific case study of selfhood and agency in twentieth century Korean Christianity. The first part of the paper will sketch the  historical elements opened up by theories of the Christian self in the West by considering contemporary works in philosophy of religion that examine modernity and subjectivity. The second part of the paper will then reflect on the implications of displacing and re-constituting those questions of the Christian self in another cultural context. Finally, I hope to open up further methodological questions concerning the political implications of cross-cultural inquiry in philosophy of religions.

 

 

For more information or accessibility assistance, please visit http://cas.uchicago.edu/workshops/philofreligions/

New “Links” Page!

We’ve added a “Links” page to our website!  Here we’ve linked to associated workshops and organizations. Hopefully, with time, the list will grow in keeping with our commitment to interdisciplinarity!

Please feel free to peruse this new (and oh so exciting) content.