Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T09:42:32.665Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phenomenology and Religion: Some Comments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2008

Frederick R. Struckmeyer
Frederick R. Struckmeyer
Affiliation:
Professor of Philosophy, Westchester State College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In recent decades, particularly since the publication of Rudolf Otto's The Idea of the Holy (1917; Eng. trans., 1923) and Gerardus Van der Leeuw's Religion in Essence and Manifestion (1933; Eng. trans., 1938), what is known as the ‘phenomenological’ approach to the study of religion has become extremely popular. I myself, in teaching courses in religious studies, have for a number of years used Van der Leeuw's classic study; it is a work of amazing insight and scholarship, and perhaps the single greatest example ofjust how successful the method of phenomenology can be when applied to a distinct field of study. But it is not only in the domain of religious studies that phenomenologists have made important contributions; in the spheres of social and political theory, for example, as well as in the philosophy of art, the philosophy of psychology, and other areas, there have been notable accomplishments.

Type
Articles
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 1980 , pp. 253 - 262
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 254 note 1 See, for example, Kockelmans', Joseph comments in his collection of Husserl studies, entitled Phenomenology (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1967), pp. 83–5.Google Scholar

page 254 note 2 See Farber, Marvin, ‘The Ideal of a Presuppositionless Philosophy’, in Kockelmans, (ed), op. cit.Google Scholar, part I, sect. 11.

page 254 note 3 Farber, Marvin, Phenomenology and Existence: Towards a Philosophy Within Nature, New York: Harper & Row (Torchbook, ed), 1967.Google Scholar

page 255 note 1 Leeuw, Gerardus Van der, Religion in Essence and Manifestation, trans. Turner, J. E. (New York: Harper & Row; Torchbook, ed., 1963Google Scholar), chap. 80.

page 255 note 2 Ibid. pp. 565, 566.

page 256 note 1 Ibid. p. 432.

page 256 note 2 Ibid.

page 256 note 3 Ibid. p. 645.

page 256 note 4 Ibid. p. 646.

page 257 note 1 Ibid.

page 257 note 2 Ibid. pp. 645, 646, n. 1.

page 257 note 3 Ibid. p. 105 (my italics).

page 258 note 1 I am overstating the case somewhat, at this point, but not too greatly. Leeuw, Van der does concede that ‘the problem [by phenomenology] becomes that of what is obviously evidence’ (pp. 684–5Google Scholar; Concerning Husserl's concept of evidence, see Meditations, Cartesian, trans. Dorion Cairns [The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1960, $ 5–6Google Scholar, especially p. 12]). Again, he says that ‘the phenomenologist… cannot proceed without submitting again and again to correction by the facts…’ (p. 685Google Scholar). But such statements are belied by others which indicate Van der Leeuw's unwillingness to have the phenomenologist's ‘interpretations’ be judged in the light of ordinary epistemological standards.

page 258 note 2 Brentano, Franz, The True and the Evident, ed. Kraus, Oskar, Eng. ed. trans. Roderick M., et al. (New York: Humanities, 1966).Google Scholar

page 258 note 3 Ibid. p. 137.

page 259 note 1 Ibid.

page 259 note 2 Sartre, Jean-Paul, Being and Nothingness: An Essay in Phenomenological Ontology, trans. Barnes, Hazel E. (New York: Philosophical Library, 1956), p. 73Google Scholar. Leeuw, Van der (op. cit. p. 676Google Scholar) denies, interestingly enough, that Husserlian phenomenology does entail idealism; he similarly denies that it entails any metaphysical realism. It is simply maintained, he says, that only by assigning things ‘form and meaning’ can they be understood.

page 259 note 3 Ibid. p. 235.

page 260 note 1 Op. cit. p. 677.Google Scholar

page 260 note 2 Ibid. p. 676 (‘not’ is not italicized in the original).

page 261 note 1 Boston: Beacon Press, 1961.Google Scholar

page 261 note 2 Original edition, 1921Google Scholar; English ed., London, SCM Press, 1960.

page 261 note 3 Scheler, (Meyerhoff ed.), p. xix.Google Scholar

page 261 note 4 Ibid. p. xxi.

page 261 note 5 Ibid. p. xxxv; text, chap. IV.

page 261 note 6 Farber, , op. cit.Google Scholar

page 261 note 7 Ibid. p. 240.