I maintain that the recent French debate on the theological turn results from a fundamental misunderstanding over the radicality of the phenomenological reduction. Arguments presented by Dominique Janicaud come down on the side against the inclusion of theological language and themes based on his belief that to include them is to compromise the rigor and method of phenomenology. I claim that not only is the theological turn acceptable, it is required if the phenomenological reduction is properly understood.;I demonstrate that if the phenomenological reduction is properly understood and executed, it results in theological insight, hence, justifying the theological turn. I further claim that there is a curious similarity between the phenomenological reduction understood as "self-meditation radicalized" and a certain religious meditative practice having "Be still!---and KNOW,---I AM,---GOD" as its directive, hence, suggesting further grounds for making the turn. By showing that theological insights result directly from the performance of the phenomenological reduction, I establish the phenomenological roots of the "theological turn" and allay any concerns that such a turn was motivated by ulterior theological motives. I clarify the connection between the reduction and the turn by distinguishing between theologies that claim to have phenomenological roots but which do not retain the fundamental phenomenological insight that immanence founds transcendence; an insight that some phenomenologists, notably Dominique Janicaud, have significantly misunderstood. En route, I clarify both the role of immanence in Husserl's thought and the sense in which he claims that his phenomenology is radical in a new sense. Thus, had Janicaud properly understood exactly how radical the phenomenological reduction was, he would have been able to come to a more determinate understanding of the role that immanence plays in Husserl's thought and he also would have seen that the theological turn has authentic phenomenological roots.
展开▼
