国产bbaaaaa片,成年美女黄网站色视频免费,成年黄大片,а天堂中文最新一区二区三区,成人精品视频一区二区三区尤物

首頁> 外文學(xué)位 >Religious Experience at the Limits of Language: Levinas, Marion, and Caputo From a Post-Phenomenological Perspective.
【24h】

Religious Experience at the Limits of Language: Levinas, Marion, and Caputo From a Post-Phenomenological Perspective.

機(jī)譯：語言后的宗教經(jīng)驗(yàn)：現(xiàn)象現(xiàn)象學(xué)視角下的列維納斯，馬里恩和卡普托。

獲取原文
獲取原文并翻譯 | 示例
  • 摘要
  • 著錄項(xiàng)
  • 相關(guān)主題

摘要

In my dissertation, I explore the thinking of Emmanuel Levinas, Jean-Luc Marion, and John D. Caputo, three late twentieth-century philosophers who consider the manner in which human desire for the divine is experienced within consciousness. I endeavor to provide a balanced reading of their views and then explore the question of whether phenomenology, rigorously applied, can provide a means for properly understanding religious experience. These three philosophers were influenced by the views of Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, and Derrida, and accordingly, my dissertation considers the manner in which those views are understood and then followed or rejected by Levinas, Marion, and Caputo. In my view, contemporary philosophy of religion struggles to find its voice, often facing criticism for its theological tenor and hyperbolic language. I attempt to offer a reasoned analysis of the way in which philosophy, properly considered, can view language-formation (the creation of meaning within consciousness) as an essential component of religious experience. In my analysis of the writings of Levinas, I explore how he finds in language the means to articulate an experience of the divine that begins outside of Being in "saying" and culminates within Being in the "said." I then delve into the philosophical basis for his break with Heidegger and his expanded reading of Husserl and consider the possibility that he failed to fully justify his arguments through phenomenology. Next I consider Marion's attempts to provide convincing arguments for an expansion of phenomenology to include all phenomena "given" to consciousness, a project grounded in his readings---or possibly his misreadings---of Husserl and Heidegger. I will evaluate Marion's argument that phenomenology may properly recognize the possibility of revelation from a divine source that resembles the God of Western religion. Marion contends that such phenomena are incomprehensible and, paradoxically, impossible; I explore the way in which this contention supports an expansion of phenomenology to consider the experience of meaning-creation that occurs when phenomena are manifested to consciousness in the manner claimed by Marion. I then consider the contributions of Caputo to this debate and his premise that experience of God occurs (if at all) through a deconstructionist undertaking; in particular, I explore the way in which his "radical" hermeneutics supplements the philosophical contributions of Levinas and Marion. Each of these three philosophers offers contemporary philosophy a different means for describing the possibility of religious experience; however, all of them conclude that human consciousness experiences God---or the idea of God---as largely incomprehensible. My dissertation asks whether phenomenology could potentially embrace impossibility as so depicted. Similarly, it considers whether a fundamental unanswered question regarding a phenomenological understanding of religious experience is this: how can truth and meaning be found in divine manifestations that defy language and are claimed to be beyond human comprehension?
機(jī)譯：在我的論文中，我探討了20世紀(jì)晚期的三位哲學(xué)家伊曼紐爾·列維納斯（Emmanuel Levinas），讓·盧克·馬里昂（Jean-Luc Marion）和約翰·卡普托（John D. Caputo）的思想，他們考慮了人類對(duì)神的渴望在意識(shí)中的經(jīng)歷方式。我努力平衡地理解他們的觀點(diǎn)，然后探討嚴(yán)格應(yīng)用的現(xiàn)象學(xué)是否可以提供一種適當(dāng)理解宗教經(jīng)驗(yàn)的手段的問題。這三個(gè)哲學(xué)家都受到了尼采，胡塞爾，海德格爾和德里達(dá)的觀點(diǎn)的影響，因此，我的論文考慮了列維納斯，馬里恩和卡普托對(duì)這些觀點(diǎn)的理解，接受和拒絕的方式。在我看來，當(dāng)代宗教哲學(xué)努力尋找自己的聲音，常常因其神學(xué)上的高音和雙曲線語言而遭到批評(píng)。我試圖對(duì)經(jīng)過適當(dāng)考慮的哲學(xué)如何將語言形成（意識(shí)中的意義創(chuàng)造）視為宗教經(jīng)驗(yàn)的重要組成部分進(jìn)行理性分析。在我對(duì)列維納斯著作的分析中，我探索了他如何在語言中找到表達(dá)神圣經(jīng)歷的手段，這種經(jīng)歷始于“說”中的存在之外，并最終體現(xiàn)于“所說”中的存在中。然后，我研究了他與海德格爾的決裂以及他對(duì)胡塞爾的擴(kuò)展閱讀的哲學(xué)基礎(chǔ)，并考慮了他未能通過現(xiàn)象學(xué)充分證明自己的論點(diǎn)的可能性。接下來，我考慮馬里昂（Marion）試圖為現(xiàn)象學(xué)的擴(kuò)展提供令人信服的論點(diǎn)，以將所有“賦予”意識(shí)的現(xiàn)象都包括進(jìn)去，這是基于他對(duì)胡塞爾（Husserl）和海德格爾（Heidegger）的讀本（或可能是他的誤讀）的一個(gè)項(xiàng)目。我將評(píng)估馬里昂（Marion）的論點(diǎn)，即現(xiàn)象學(xué)可以適當(dāng)?shù)卣J(rèn)識(shí)到來自類似于西方宗教之神的神圣來源啟示的可能性。馬里昂認(rèn)為，這種現(xiàn)象是難以理解的，而且矛盾的是，是不可能的。我探索了這種爭(zhēng)論支持現(xiàn)象學(xué)擴(kuò)展的方式，以考慮當(dāng)現(xiàn)象以馬里昂（Marion）所主張的方式表現(xiàn)為意識(shí)時(shí)發(fā)生的意義創(chuàng)造體驗(yàn)。然后，我考慮卡普托對(duì)這場(chǎng)辯論的貢獻(xiàn)，以及他的前提，即上帝的經(jīng)驗(yàn)是通過解構(gòu)主義事業(yè)發(fā)生的（如果有的話）。特別是，我探索了他的“激進(jìn)”詮釋學(xué)對(duì)列維納斯和馬里恩的哲學(xué)貢獻(xiàn)的補(bǔ)充方式。這三位哲學(xué)家都為當(dāng)代哲學(xué)提供了不同的方式來描述宗教經(jīng)歷的可能性。然而，他們所有人都得出結(jié)論，人類的意識(shí)在很大程度上無法理解地經(jīng)歷了上帝（或上帝的觀念）。我的論文問的是，現(xiàn)象學(xué)是否有可能像這樣描述不可能。同樣，它考慮有關(guān)宗教經(jīng)驗(yàn)的現(xiàn)象學(xué)理解的根本未解決的問題是否是這樣的：如何在反抗語言并聲稱超出人類理解能力的神圣表現(xiàn)形式中找到真理和意義？

著錄項(xiàng)

  • 作者

    Swart, William E.;

  • 作者單位

    The University of Texas at Dallas.;

  • 授予單位 The University of Texas at Dallas.;
  • 學(xué)科 Philosophy.;Religion.;Philosophy of Religion.
  • 學(xué)位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2017
  • 頁碼 226 p.
  • 總頁數(shù) 226
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文語種 eng
  • 中圖分類 康復(fù)醫(yī)學(xué);
  • 關(guān)鍵詞

獲取原文

客服郵箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公網(wǎng)安備：11010802029741號(hào) ICP備案號(hào)：京ICP備15016152號(hào)-6 六維聯(lián)合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司?版權(quán)所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服務(wù)號(hào)