How Not to Diversify Philosophy of Religion: A Critique from the Twenty-First Century

IF 0.5 3区哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY

Sophia Pub Date : 2024-03-06 DOI:10.1007/s11841-024-01007-z

Rafal K. Stepien

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Philosophy of religion has been the object of penetrating critiques concerning its continued near-complete blindness to all but a single religion. The need for philosophy of religion to open up so as to include more than merely occasional and tokenistic treatments of ‘Other’ religions is clearly evident from the slew of recently published titles concerned with diversifying the field. In this light, a book such as Victoria Harrison’s Eastern Philosophy of Religion should surely come as a welcome addition. And yet, unfortunately, this book turns out to be a case study in how not to diversify philosophy of religion in the twenty-first century.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

如何避免宗教哲学多样化？来自二十一世纪的批判

宗教哲学一直受到深刻的批判，因为除了一种宗教之外，宗教哲学对其他宗教几乎完全视而不见。从最近出版的一系列有关该领域多样化的著作中，我们可以清楚地看到，宗教哲学需要开放，不能只是偶尔和象征性地论述 "其他 "宗教。有鉴于此，像维多利亚-哈里森（Victoria Harrison）的《东方宗教哲学》这样的著作理应受到欢迎。然而，不幸的是，这本书却成了 21 世纪宗教哲学多元化失败的案例研究。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Sophia PHILOSOPHY-

CiteScore

0.60

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Sophia is now published by Springer. The back files, all the way to Volume 1:1, are available via SpringerLink! Covers both analytic and continental philosophy of religionConsiders both western and non-western perspectives, including Asian and indigenousIncludes specialist contributions, e.g. on feminist and postcolonial philosophy of religionSince its inception in 1962, Sophia has been devoted to providing a forum for discussions in philosophy and religion, focusing on the interstices between metaphysics and theological thinking. The discussions take cognizance of the wider ambience of the sciences (''natural'' philosophy and human/social sciences), ethical and moral concerns in the public sphere, critical feminist theology and cross-cultural perspectives. Sophia''s cross-cultural and cross-frontier approach is reflected not only in the international composition of its editorial board, but also in its consideration of analytic, continental, Asian and indigenous responses to issues and developments in the field of philosophy of religion.