Immediacy

Jason W. Alvis
{"title":"Immediacy","authors":"Jason W. Alvis","doi":"10.22329/p.v13i2.6207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"At least for Schleiermacher, religion is life in immediate feeling. Whether or not we agree with him, immediacy can be understood as one essential aspect of feeling that makes feeling congenial as the means by which we tend to express the source of religious experience. Yet in general, immediacy is difficult to define and qualify. Is there a hope for immediacy in seeking “to be delivered from contingency” (Merleau-Ponty)? Is immediacy expressed in the instantaneity of how qualities of things are given in a “total interpenetration” (Sartre)? Or are “immediacy and mediation” always inseparable, thus leaving any “opposition between them to be a nullity”? (Hegel)?[i] Might immediacy entail a threat to faith through the absolutizing of the relative (Kierkegaard)? And finally, would not the absolute insistence upon mediation morph it into a new form of immediacy? \nIt is against the backdrop of these questions that this paper investigates the constellation of roles immediacy might play in religious experience, and it does so through building upon the (seemingly diametrically opposed) claims of Jean-Yves Lacoste and Anthony Steinbock in regards to religion. For Lacoste, “feeling” is not an adequate means by which we should give expression to religion, in part because it leaves religion responsive to an all too volitional and intentional account. Lacoste also prefers to conceive relation with the Absolute/God (a relation he calls \"liturgy\") not as an experience, but as a non-experience. Whereas for Steinbock, even though emotions all to often are conceptualized according to sentimentality and solipsism, he undertakes to reveal that (especially regarding Religious Experience or \"epiphanic\" givenness) they in fact have an inherent inter-personal/Personal or Moral intelligibility. The paper builds up to the final claims that immediacy is a temporal expression of the unconditioned, yet that it is precisely this temporal element in relation to the Absolute that complicates the mediation/immediacy interaction. \n ","PeriodicalId":41103,"journal":{"name":"PhaenEx-Journal of Existential and Phenomenological Theory and Culture","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PhaenEx-Journal of Existential and Phenomenological Theory and Culture","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22329/p.v13i2.6207","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

At least for Schleiermacher, religion is life in immediate feeling. Whether or not we agree with him, immediacy can be understood as one essential aspect of feeling that makes feeling congenial as the means by which we tend to express the source of religious experience. Yet in general, immediacy is difficult to define and qualify. Is there a hope for immediacy in seeking “to be delivered from contingency” (Merleau-Ponty)? Is immediacy expressed in the instantaneity of how qualities of things are given in a “total interpenetration” (Sartre)? Or are “immediacy and mediation” always inseparable, thus leaving any “opposition between them to be a nullity”? (Hegel)?[i] Might immediacy entail a threat to faith through the absolutizing of the relative (Kierkegaard)? And finally, would not the absolute insistence upon mediation morph it into a new form of immediacy? It is against the backdrop of these questions that this paper investigates the constellation of roles immediacy might play in religious experience, and it does so through building upon the (seemingly diametrically opposed) claims of Jean-Yves Lacoste and Anthony Steinbock in regards to religion. For Lacoste, “feeling” is not an adequate means by which we should give expression to religion, in part because it leaves religion responsive to an all too volitional and intentional account. Lacoste also prefers to conceive relation with the Absolute/God (a relation he calls "liturgy") not as an experience, but as a non-experience. Whereas for Steinbock, even though emotions all to often are conceptualized according to sentimentality and solipsism, he undertakes to reveal that (especially regarding Religious Experience or "epiphanic" givenness) they in fact have an inherent inter-personal/Personal or Moral intelligibility. The paper builds up to the final claims that immediacy is a temporal expression of the unconditioned, yet that it is precisely this temporal element in relation to the Absolute that complicates the mediation/immediacy interaction.  
即时性
至少对施莱尔马赫来说,宗教是直接感受的生活。无论我们是否同意他的观点,直接性都可以被理解为情感的一个重要方面,它使情感成为我们倾向于表达宗教体验来源的手段。然而,一般来说,即时性是很难定义和限定的。在寻求“从偶然性中解脱出来”(梅洛-庞蒂)的过程中,是否有立竿直上的希望?直接性是否表现为事物的品质如何在“完全的相互渗透”中被赋予的瞬间性(萨特)?还是“直接性与中介性”总是不可分的,以致“它们之间的对立为空”?(黑格尔)?直接性是否会通过相对绝对化导致对信仰的威胁(克尔凯郭尔)?最后,对中介性的绝对坚持会不会使中介性变成一种新的直接形式呢?正是在这些问题的背景下,本文通过建立Jean-Yves Lacoste和Anthony Steinbock关于宗教的主张(看似截然相反)来研究即时性在宗教经验中可能发挥的作用。对拉科斯特来说,“感觉”不是我们表达宗教的适当手段,部分原因是它让宗教对一种过于意志和有意的解释做出反应。拉科斯特还倾向于将与绝对/上帝的关系(他称之为“礼拜”的关系)不视为一种经验,而视为一种非经验。而对于斯坦伯克来说,尽管情感通常都是根据多愁善感和唯我论来概念化的,但他承诺揭示(特别是关于宗教经验或“顿悟”给予)它们实际上具有内在的人际/个人或道德可理解性。本文的最终主张是,直接性是无条件的时间表达,然而,正是这种与绝对有关的时间因素使中介/直接性相互作用复杂化。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信