Preview

RSUH/RGGU BULLETIN. Series Philosophy. Social Studies. Art Studies

Advanced search

Imagination and metaphor in theological language

https://doi.org/10.28995/2073-6401-2020-3-48-63

Abstract

The paper investigates the religious language interpretation in the contemporary continental philosophic theology. The author presents the central role of the imagination and metaphor in theological language. The diacritical hermeneutics of Richard Kearney is analyzed as an example of the theological language transition from the theologics to theopoetics. Modifications in the theological language are associated with transformations in the understanding of theology itself, which becomes a topological and tropological study. It considers the interpretation of imagination in Kearney’s early works, his attempts to describe “paradigmatic shifts” in the human understanding of imagination in different epochs of Western history. The author highlights mimetic paradigm of the pre-modern imagination, productive paradigm of the modern imagination and parodic paradigm of the postmodern imagination. Analysis of Kearney’s “biblical” interpretation of imagination allows one to understand the imagination as the point of contact of God with humanity. She also considers how Ricoeur’s theory of metaphor influences the development of the poetic language in postmodern Christian theology and demonstrates that poetic and religious languages are brought together by an “imaginative variations”. The author argues that turning to imagination in religious language allows theological hermeneutics to move from the static to kinetic images of God.

About the Author

S. A. Konacheva
Russian State University for the Humanities
Russian Federation

Svetlana A. Konacheva, Dr. of Sci. (Philosophy), professor

bld. 6, Miusskaya Square, Moscow, 125993



References

1. Caputo, J.D. (2013), The insistence of God: a theology of perhaps, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, USA.

2. Green, G. (1989), Imagining God: Theology and the Religious Imagination, Harper and Row, San Francisco, USA.

3. Green, G. (2000), Theology, Hermeneutics, and Imagination: The Crisis of Interpretation at the End of Modernity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

4. Heidegger, M. (1976), “Einige Hinweise auf die Hauptgesichtspunkte für das theologische Gespräch über Das Problem eines nichtobjektivierenden Denkens und Sprechens in der heutigen Theologie”, in Heidegger, M. Wegmarken. Gesamtausgabe. Bd. 9. Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, S. 69–78.

5. Kearney, R. (2003), Strangers, Gods, and Monsters, Routledge, London, UK.

6. Kearney, R. (1984), The God who may be, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, USA.

7. Kearney, R. (1988), The Wake of Imagination, Routledge, London, UK.

8. Ozankom, Cl. (1994), Gott und Gegenstand: Martin Heideggers Objektivierungsverdikt und seine theologische Rezeption bei Rudolf Bultmann und Heinrich Ott. Ferdinand Schöningh, Paderborn, München, Germany.

9. Putt, K.B. (2006) “Theopoetics of the possible”, Manoussakis J.P. (ed.), After God: Richard Kearney and the religious turn in continental philosophy, Fordham University Press, New York, NY, pp. 241–269.

10. Ricœur, P. (1990), “Metaphorical process as cognition, imagination and sensation”, Arutyunova, N.D. (ed.), Teoriya metafory [Theory of metaphor. Intr. art. and comp. by N. D. Arutyunova], Progress, Moscow, Russia, pp. 416–434.


Review

For citations:


Konacheva S.A. Imagination and metaphor in theological language. RSUH/RGGU BULLETIN. Series Philosophy. Social Studies. Art Studies. 2020;(3):48-63. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.28995/2073-6401-2020-3-48-63

Views: 143


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2073-6401 (Print)
ISSN 2073-6401 (Online)