Translating God: Derrida, Ricoeur, Kearney

The purpose of the present essay is to defend two related notions. The more specific notion that I seek to defend is Richard Kearney’s conception of God as posse, of God as a possible God. His position has recently been criticized for three separate reasons: that it is not radical enough, that it...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Lynn Sebastian Purcell
Formato: article
Lenguaje:EN
Publicado: University of Calgary 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://doaj.org/article/d37dd8841dcb4c3d86280c46d2ec48a0
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
id oai:doaj.org-article:d37dd8841dcb4c3d86280c46d2ec48a0
record_format dspace
spelling oai:doaj.org-article:d37dd8841dcb4c3d86280c46d2ec48a02021-11-25T21:27:16ZTranslating God: Derrida, Ricoeur, Kearney10.11575/jah.v0i0.531951927-4416https://doaj.org/article/d37dd8841dcb4c3d86280c46d2ec48a02012-06-01T00:00:00Zhttps://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/jah/article/view/53195https://doaj.org/toc/1927-4416 The purpose of the present essay is to defend two related notions. The more specific notion that I seek to defend is Richard Kearney’s conception of God as posse, of God as a possible God. His position has recently been criticized for three separate reasons: that it is not radical enough, that it is crypto-metaphysical, and that it forecloses the most profound aims of ethics. At a broader level what seems to be at stake is the opposition between partisans of radical finitude, those who hold that the most profound questions are encountered at the limits of thought, and an alternative “infinite†conception that Kearney shares with Paul Ricoeur, which maintains that fidelity to unpredictable events opens the way to what is most profound about the human condition. In response I argue that the criticisms fail to hit their mark because they presuppose a broadly Derridian or post-modern position in order to make their argument, when it is just those presuppositions that are in question. Lynn Sebastian PurcellUniversity of CalgaryarticlePhilosophy (General)B1-5802ENJournal of Applied Hermeneutics (2012)
institution DOAJ
collection DOAJ
language EN
topic Philosophy (General)
B1-5802
spellingShingle Philosophy (General)
B1-5802
Lynn Sebastian Purcell
Translating God: Derrida, Ricoeur, Kearney
description The purpose of the present essay is to defend two related notions. The more specific notion that I seek to defend is Richard Kearney’s conception of God as posse, of God as a possible God. His position has recently been criticized for three separate reasons: that it is not radical enough, that it is crypto-metaphysical, and that it forecloses the most profound aims of ethics. At a broader level what seems to be at stake is the opposition between partisans of radical finitude, those who hold that the most profound questions are encountered at the limits of thought, and an alternative “infinite†conception that Kearney shares with Paul Ricoeur, which maintains that fidelity to unpredictable events opens the way to what is most profound about the human condition. In response I argue that the criticisms fail to hit their mark because they presuppose a broadly Derridian or post-modern position in order to make their argument, when it is just those presuppositions that are in question.
format article
author Lynn Sebastian Purcell
author_facet Lynn Sebastian Purcell
author_sort Lynn Sebastian Purcell
title Translating God: Derrida, Ricoeur, Kearney
title_short Translating God: Derrida, Ricoeur, Kearney
title_full Translating God: Derrida, Ricoeur, Kearney
title_fullStr Translating God: Derrida, Ricoeur, Kearney
title_full_unstemmed Translating God: Derrida, Ricoeur, Kearney
title_sort translating god: derrida, ricoeur, kearney
publisher University of Calgary
publishDate 2012
url https://doaj.org/article/d37dd8841dcb4c3d86280c46d2ec48a0
work_keys_str_mv AT lynnsebastianpurcell translatinggodderridaricoeurkearney
_version_ 1718410060538839040