Skip to main content

Philosophical Idealism, the Irrational and the Personal

  • Chapter
Foundational Reflections

Part of the book series: American University Publications in Philosophy ((MNPL,volume 29))

  • 96 Accesses

Abstract

The potentiality and power of human rationality is the hallmark of Greek philosophy, whether Platonic or Aristotelian. Renaissance and Enlightenment philosophers developed the logos of rationality as a central feature of modern culture, either in the form of mathematical rationalism or experiential reasoning, with appropriate debate between these diverse modes. A self-consciousness culmination of the logos of reason was the elaboration of German Idealism complimented by Anglo-Saxon representatives, which idealism came under severe attack in the twentieth century from both postivistic or analytic philosophers as well as from phenomenological and existential thinkers. Within this latter community and specifically in the arena of philosophy of religion, a most serious attack was launched upon European Idealism and classical rationalism, which attack is the focus of this essay.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Footnotes

  1. Lewis White beck anticipated this development when in 1968 he wrote, “There is, indeed, some intimations now that the history of philosophy may be recapitulated in the future course of interest in that history; if so, we may anticipate a markedly increased attention to post-Kantian speculative philosophy.” L. W. Beck, Kant Studies Today (La Salle: Open Court, 1969).

    Google Scholar 

  2. The evidence of this Neo-Hegelianism is overwhelming and too vast to list. As but a sample of the evidence see Bernstein, R. J. “Why Hegel Now?” Review of Metaphysics, 31 (1977) 29–60;

    Google Scholar 

  3. W. Marx, Reason And World (The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1971);

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. W. Pannenberg, What Is Man? (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970);

    Google Scholar 

  5. S. Rosen, G. W. Hegel (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974);

    Google Scholar 

  6. N. Rotenstreich, From Substance To Subject (The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1974);

    Google Scholar 

  7. C. Taylor, Hegel (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1975);

    Google Scholar 

  8. R. C. S. Walker, Kant (Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979). A most interesting discussion will inevitably develop in the attempted adjustment of recent analytic interests to neo-idealism. A comparable dialogue is inevitable between Neo-Hegelianism and phenomenology including existential phenomenology, in which context this essay is but an initial contribution. For the attempt to reconcile idealism with Chrstian thought see the work of J. N. Findlay, and especially his unpublished paper presented to the 1978 meeting of the International Society For Neoplatonic Studies, “Why Christians Should Be Platonists.”

    Google Scholar 

  9. For an excellent analysis of one version of this attempt see P. Tillich, The Construction Of The History Of Religion In Schelling’s Positive Philosophy (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1974);

    Google Scholar 

  10. P. Tillich, Mysticism And Guilt-Consciousness In Schelling’s Philosophical Development (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1974).

    Google Scholar 

  11. It may not have been as dead as was thought, even in recent philosophy of science. See T. W. Adorno, The Positivist Dispute In German Sociology (New York: Harper and Row, 1946), where it is suggested that the debate between positivism as a philosophy of science and more dialectical philosophy of science is a continuation of the debate between positivism and idealism.

    Google Scholar 

  12. E. Brunner, The Philosophy Of Religion (New York: Scribner’s, 1937) p. 58.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ibid., p. 55.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ibid., p. 37.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ibid., p. 38.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ibid., p. 39.

    Google Scholar 

  19. E. Brunner, God And Man (London: Student Christian Movement Press, 1936) pp. 50–51.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Brunner interprets Schelling as having played a unique role in this concern with the personal, with implications for twentieth century philosophy of religion. The case is different with Schelling at a later date: his gnosis took its stand actually on Christian knowledge, but remained remarkably obscure as to its own origin. In his Positive Philosophy, Schelling meant to write entirely as a philosopher, and not at all as a theologian. Of course, he perceived it was impossible to reach the conception of a “living God” by way of philosophical reflection. He gave the name of “negative philosophy” to attempts of this kind which included all previous speculation in the realm of philosophy of religion. Schelling asserted, but failed to prove, that it was possible to set out from the conception of the “living God” without passing from the region of philosophy to that of faith and theology. But the working out of his system of gnosis goes on to prove, on the contrary, that he himself needed the positive faith of Christianty for a basis if he were to be successful in passing from thence to his gnostic speculations (it must be granted that the later do not lack significance for us today). A like uncertainty is perceptible also in Tllich’s gnosis, which follows the lines of Schelling’s. Here the ambiguous application of the conception of symbol makes it impossible for us to be clear whether revelation means a universal, an entity semper et ubique identical at bottom with itself, or, on the other hand, some definite, unique, and therefore decisive event. (E. Brunner, Philosophy of Religion, p. 42.).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ibid., p. 60.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ibid., p. 63.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ibid., p. 64.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ibid., p. 65.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ibid., p. 69.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ibid., p. 71.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ibid., p. 72.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ibid., p. 73.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ibid., p. 74.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ibid., P. 16.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  35. E. Brunner, The Word And The World (New York: Scribner’s, 1931) p. 26.

    Google Scholar 

  36. E. Brunner, God And Man, p. 48.

    Google Scholar 

  37. E. Brunner, Philosophy Of Religion, p. 72.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ibid., p. 71.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Ibid., p. 76.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Ibid., p. 77.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Ibid., p. 79.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Ibid., p. 80.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Ibid., p. 84.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ibid., p. 82.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Ibid., p. 86.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Ibid., p. 96.

    Google Scholar 

  49. See. W. Pannenberg, Revelation As History (Sheed & Ward, 1969).

    Google Scholar 

  50. See the as yet unpublished paper by D. Christensen, “Can Hegel’s Concept Of Self-Evidence Be Salvaged,” read to the 1978 meeting of the Hegel Society Of America.

    Google Scholar 

  51. E. Brunner, God And Man, p. 64.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1987 Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Durfee, H.A. (1987). Philosophical Idealism, the Irrational and the Personal. In: Foundational Reflections. American University Publications in Philosophy, vol 29. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3593-8_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3593-8_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-010-8107-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-009-3593-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics