Philosophers of Consciousness by Webb Eugene;

Author:Webb, Eugene;
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: University of Washington Press
Published: 1988-07-15T00:00:00+00:00

1. Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation, trans. Denis Savage. This volume will subsequently be referred to as Freud.

2. Lonergan, Insight, pp. 191–203. Voegelin, Anamnesis, p. 201.

3. Descartes, Meditations, IV, quoted in Fallible Man, p. 5.

4. See for example, Anamnesis, pp. 3, 102, 108, and “Eclipse of Reality,” p. 190.

5. See, for example, Bruce Douglass, “A Diminished Gospel: A Critique of Voegelin’s Interpretation of Christianity,” in Stephen A. McKnight, ed., Eric Voegelin’s Search for Order in History, pp. 139–54; John A. Gueguen, “Voegelin’s From Enlightenment to Revolution: A Review Article,” The Thomist 42 (1978): 123–34; John Hallowell, “Existence in Tension: Man in Search of His Humanity,” Political Science Reviewer 2 (1972): 181–84 (reprinted in the McKnight volume, pp. 101–126); Gerhart Niemeyer, “Eric Voegelin’s Philosophy and the Drama of Mankind,” Modern Age 20 (1976): 28–39; and Frederick D. Wilhelmsen, “The New Voegelin,” Triumph January 1975, pp. 32–35.

6. See his “Original Sin: A Study in Meaning,” in Ricoeur, The Conflict of Interpretations, pp. 269–86.

7. Cf. Emil J. Piscitelli, “Paul Ricoeur’s Philosophy of Religious Symbol: A Critique and Dialectical Transposition,” Ultimate Reality and Meaning 3 (1980): 294.

8. Ibid., p. 295.

9. The Rule of Metaphor: Multidisciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning in Language, trans. Robert Czerny with Kathleen McLaughlin and John Costello, p. 315.

10. “Paul Ricoeur’s Philosophy of Religious Symbol: A Critique and Dialectical Transposition,” p. 276.

11. Collection, p. 207.

12. Ricoeur, Essays on Biblical Interpretation, ed. Lewis S. Mudge, p. 166. For a full discussion of the way in which Ricoeur considers his own thought “post-Hegelian,” see the chapter “Renoncer à Hegel,” in his Temps et récit, vol. 3: Le temps raconté, pp. 280–99. (This is the as yet untranslated third volume of Ricoeur’s Time and Narrative, which will be discussed at greater length below.) There he speaks of Hegel’s hope for the total objectification of Spirit as a temptation to be renounced, but he also indicates that it is a temptation he has himself felt keenly. Explaining how “we no longer think according to (selon) Hegel, but after (après) Hegel,” he says, “. . . what reader, once he has been seduced like us by his power of thought, would not feel the abandonment of Hegel as a wound, and one which, precisely in contrast to the wounds of the absolute Spirit, does not heal? To such a reader, if he is not to yield to the weaknesses of nostalgia, one must wish the courage for a labor of grief” (pp. 298–99, my translation). That Ricoeur identifies himself as having been such a reader would seem to throw an additional light on his affinity for the tragic vision: we long to grasp the whole of existence and reality in a perfect objectification, but we must despair of it and always mourn its impossibility.

Could something of the same sort be said about Voegelin? Voegelin was strongly—indeed fiercely—critical of Hegelianism, but Thomas J. J. Altizer, in his review article on The Ecumenic Age, “A New History and a New But Ancient God?” suggested

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.