An issue of the Other in the modern theological hermeneutics
https://doi.org/10.28995/2073-6401-2019-8-262-276
Abstract
The author gives a comparative analysis of an interpretation for the concept of the Other in radical (J.D. Caputo) and diacritical hermeneutics (R. Kearney). The article considers the understanding of otherness in the context of the concept of the impossible and the criticism of traditional ethics in the works of Caputo. The main features of the post-metaphysical ethics are highlighted: the absence of any deep foundations and hypersensitivity to the Other. In the analysis of the concept of “religion without religion” the author accents the indeterminacy between God and the Other , God and love. In discussions around the interpretations of the Other in the theory of deconstruction with its claim “every other is wholly other” she emphasizes the impossibility to distinguish between the divine and the monstrous. Richard Kearney’s diacritical hermeneutics is considered as an attempt to overcome the extremes of a strict version of indeterminacy. The author shows that the way of thinking of God from the perspective of persona and prosopon pays tribute to the irreducible singularity of the Other, but at the same time does not place the Other on the other side of the abyss, which would exclude the possibility of any kind of relationship. Another significant way of thinking is the understanding of God as posse rather as esse. The main task is to consider the transcendence without precluding a possibility to experience or encounter the transcendence. It is stated that Kearney thinks of God in such a way as to take into account the transcendence of absolute otherness, and at the same time pay attention to how that otherness can appear as phenomenon.
About the Author
S. A. Konacheva
Russian State University for the Humanities
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Konacheva, Dr. of Sci. (Philosophy)
bld. 6, Miusskaya Square, Moscow, GSP-3, 125993
References
1. Caputo, J. (1993), Against ethics: contributions to a poetics of obligation with constant reference to deconstruction, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, USA.
2. Caputo, J. (1993), Demythologizing Heidegger, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, USA.
3. Caputo, J. (2000), More radical hermeneutics: on not knowing who we are, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, USA.
4. Caputo, J. (1987), Radical hermeneutics: repetition, deconstruction, and the hermeneutic project, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, USA.
5. Caputo, J. (2001), On religion, Routledge, London, New York, USA.
6. Caputo, J. (2001), ‘‘What do I love when I love my God? Deconstruction and Radical Orthodoxy’’, in Caputo, J.D., Dooley, M. and Scanlon, M.J. (ed.), Questioning God, Indiana University Press Bloomington, USA, pp. 291-317.
7. Kearney, R. (1984), The God who may be: a hermeneutic of religion, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, USA.
8. Levinas, E. (2000), Total’nost’ i beskonechnoe [Totality and Infinity], Universitetskaya kniga, Moscow, Russia.
9. Manoussakis, J.P. (2006), ‘‘Toward a Fourth Reduction?’’, in Manoussakis, J.P. (ed.), After God: Richard Kearney and religious turn in continental philosophy, Fordham University Press, New York, USA, рр. 21-38.
10. Treanor, Br. (2006), ‘‘Quis ergo Amo cum Deum Meum Amo?’’, in Manoussakis, J.P. (ed.), After God: Richard Kearney and religious turn in continental philosophy, Fordham University Press, New York, USA, рр. 139-154.
11. Ward, Gr. (2001), ‘‘Questioning God’’, in Caputo, J.D., Dooley, M. and Scanlon, M.J (ed.), Questioning God, Indiana University Press Bloomington, USA, pp. 274-290.
Review
For citations:
Konacheva S.A. An issue of the Other in the modern theological hermeneutics. RSUH/RGGU BULLETIN. Series Philosophy. Social Studies. Art Studies. 2019;(3):262-276. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.28995/2073-6401-2019-8-262-276
Views:
117
Email this article 