首页> 外文OA文献 >Speculation, philosophy and the end of religion : save the name ‘God’ and the folly of this name as the queen of the sciences or the jester of academia
【2h】

Speculation, philosophy and the end of religion : save the name ‘God’ and the folly of this name as the queen of the sciences or the jester of academia

机译:猜测,哲学和宗教的终结:拯救“上帝”这个名字以及这个名称的愚蠢作为科学的女王或学术的小丑

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

In this article, Meillassoux and Laruelle were brought into conversation with Derrida concerning contingency, temporality, non-philosophy and God. The conversation between Derrida and Meillassoux focused on their respective views on trace and radical contingency, which opened towards reflections on God as either divinology (Meillassoux) or the endless desertification of language (Derrida), thus saving the name 'God' and keeping the name safe. One cannot think this desertification of language, 'God', without a reflection on khōra. This opened a conversational space with Laruelle's non-philosophy. One of the major criticisms against Laruelle is that his non-philosophy has no worth in terms of the extra-philosophical (ethical, political or juridical) and the same could be said with regards to khōra and, specifically, Derrida's interpretation of khōra. Therefore Derrida's interpretation of khōra with its 'unilateral' relation to logos, the giving and receiving of khōra without giving and receiving anything and thus remaining indifferent, were brought into conversation with Laruelle's unilateral duality. This unilateral duality, although indifferent to philosophy, makes all the difference to logos and thus to philosophy. The question is: what place is given to khōra and/or non-philosophy within academia? Derrida's God can be interpreted as a kind of autodeconstructive divine violence or holy folly. What place is given to divine violence or holy folly within academia? What is the relation of non-philosophy to philosophy? Is it the non-foundational foundation that remains totally indifferent to philosophy as it does not engage in a dialectical relationship with philosophy and yet it is the theory or science of philosophy? Can academia afford to 'give place' to this holy folly, this non-philosophy, this khōratic theo-logic, but on the other hand, can it afford not to 'give place' to the queen and/or jester of academia?
机译:在本文中,Meillassoux和Laruelle与德里达就偶然性,暂时性,非哲学性和上帝展开了对话。德里达与迈拉苏克斯之间的对话集中于他们对痕迹和激进偶然性的各自观点,这些观点开启了对神的反思,即神是神论论(Meillassoux)或语言的无尽荒漠化(德里达),因此保存了“上帝”的名称并保留了该名称。安全。如果不思考khōra,就无法想到语言“上帝”的荒漠化。这为拉鲁埃(Laruelle)的非哲学开辟了对话空间。对拉鲁埃勒的主要批评之一是,他的非哲学在超哲学(伦理,政治或司法)方面没有价值,关于霍拉,尤其是德里达对霍拉的解释,也可以说同样的价值。因此,德里达对徽标的“单方面”关系,对科拉的赠与接受,对赠品的接受和不给予任何赠品以及对赠品的接受,因而保持冷漠的理解就与拉鲁埃尔的单边对偶性进行了讨论。这种单方面的二元性虽然对哲学无动于衷,但对徽标以及哲学都产生了很大的影响。问题是:学术界在科拉和/或非哲学领域中占有什么位置?德里达的上帝可以解释为一种自我毁灭性的神圣暴力或愚蠢行为。学术界在神圣的暴力或愚昧中占有什么位置?非哲学与哲学的关系是什么?是不是无基础的基础仍然对哲学完全无动于衷,因为它没有与哲学建立辩证关系,而是哲学的理论或科学?学术界能否为这个愚蠢的,非哲学的,这种狂热的神学理论“占位”,但另一方面,它能否为学术界的女王和/或小丑提供“占位”呢?

著录项

  • 作者

    Meylahn, Johann-Albrecht;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2014
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 en
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号