God after Metaphysics: A Theological Aesthetic (Indiana Series in the Philosophy of Religion)

By John Panteleimon Manoussakis

While philosophy believes it really is very unlikely to have an adventure of God with no the senses, theology claims that such an adventure is feasible, even though in all likelihood idolatrous. during this engagingly inventive ebook, John Panteleimon Manoussakis ends the deadlock by way of featuring a classy making an allowance for a sensuous adventure of God that isn't subordinated to imposed different types or ideas. Manoussakis attracts upon the theological traditions of the japanese Church, together with patristic and liturgical assets, to construct a theological aesthetic based at the inverted gaze of icons, the augmented language of hymns, and the reciprocity of contact. Manoussakis explores how a relational interpretation of being develops a fuller and extra significant view of the phenomenology of non secular event past metaphysics and onto-theology.

Show description

Quick preview of God after Metaphysics: A Theological Aesthetic (Indiana Series in the Philosophy of Religion) PDF

Show sample text content

Is it now not the case that i've got, with the intention to converse, an entire sequence of props in readiness, and am able to lean on one if one other can be taken from less than me and vice versa? The which means of “God”—neither mounted, nor unequivocal—is, for Wittgenstein, disclosed in descriptions preserved in our scriptural (i. e. , textual and narrative) reminiscence. which may suggest, to begin with, a choice for descriptions’ pluralism over and opposed to definition’s monism. Our scriptural narratives, to which the that means appeals, don't outline what “God” is, yet particularly describe who this “God” is.

At one time every body desired to be the pilgrim who used to be dreamed up within the Empyrean below the signal of 29 God after Metaphysics the Rose, the person who sees the Veronica in Rome and fervently mutters: “Jesus Christ, my God, really God: so this is often what your face was once like? ” . . . those positive aspects were misplaced to us the way in which a kaleidoscope layout is misplaced eternally, or a magic quantity composed of daily figures. we will be able to be taking a look at them and nonetheless no longer comprehend them. The profile of a Jewish guy within the subway could be similar to Christ’s; the fingers that supply us a few switch on the price ticket window might be just like the fingers that infantrymen in the future nailed to the pass.

At one time each person desired to be the pilgrim who was once dreamed up within the Empyrean below the signal of 29 God after Metaphysics the Rose, the one that sees the Veronica in Rome and fervently mutters: “Jesus Christ, my God, really God: so this is often what your face was once like? ” . . . those positive factors were misplaced to us the best way a kaleidoscope layout is misplaced eternally, or a magic quantity composed of daily figures. we will be able to be them and nonetheless no longer comprehend them. The profile of a Jewish guy within the subway might be kind of like Christ’s; the fingers that provide us a few switch on the price ticket window will be similar to the palms that squaddies in the future nailed to the move.

And but these facets of différance that are thereby delineated will not be theological, no longer even within the order of the main detrimental of destructive theologies, that are regularly inquisitive about disengaging a superessentiality past the finite different types of essence and life, that's of presence, and regularly hastening to keep in mind that God is refused the predicate of life, in simple terms that allows you to recognize his improved, unimaginable, and ineffable mode of being. 30 the relationship among Platonic khora and deconstructive différance, as we'll see, is still implicit in Derrida’s texts yet has been acknowledged extra explicitly by way of his commentators.

G. , Iliad XVIII. 414, Odyssey XIX. 361) and Sophocles (Electra 1277, Oedipus at Colonus 314). The Greek language is just too strict to permit such an anomaly to ensue with no sturdy cause. maybe, when you consider that prosopon, via definition, can't exist completely as one individual, it usually wishes (and continuously refers to) at the least another individual and the connection among them. Being-toward-a-face regularly presupposes the opposite, in entrance of whom we stand. This different, in flip, through status in entrance of me, should be a prosopon in addition.

Download PDF sample

Rated 4.56 of 5 – based on 21 votes