God Without God: A divine limit to the "phenomenon”
Abstract
The background concern of this paper is the well-rehearsed debate on the ‘theological turn’ (or «veerings») in French Phenomenology that was ignited by Dominique Janicaud some 25 years ago in his vociferous critique of several leading French thinkers. It also responds to subsequent contestations against Janicaud by numerous scholars defending these thinkers radicalising of phenomenology in their attempts to account for what Emanuel Levinas had «stirred up in the phenomenological field» by re-posing the question of the philosophical status of the idea of God. What is pivotal to Janicaud in his exclusionary critique and drawing of phenomenological boundaries is to hold dearly to the method as Edmund Husserl intended. In doing so, only describable phenomena that appear (or are logically subtended to appear) provide the litmus for a bona fide phenomenology. In opening and broadening the method to include experiences of a transcendent, religious nature as the French thinkers do, orthodox Husserlian thinking places these projects into question. The purpose of this paper is to question these post-Husserlian thinkers with a more faithful reading of Husserl. I analyse three key areas to suggest a ‘divine limit’ to phenomena: first, the concept of “the phenomenon” as developed in Husserl’s project; second, the ‘status of the idea of God’ in Husserl’s writings; and third, the relevant philosophical discourse on God that emerges from the Janicaud-led debate through critical commentary on the phenomenology of “the inapparent”. As a consequence, God is argued to be a divine limit to Husserlian phenomenology, but not religious belief itself.
References
COURTINE, J-F. (2016). «French Phenomenology in Historical Context», in: T. R. Dikka and W. C. Hackett (eds.). Quiet Powers of the Possible: Interviews in Contemporary French Philosophy. Oxfordshire: Fordham University Press, 24-39
DERRIDA, J. (2008). «How to Avoid Speaking: Denials», in Psyche: Inventions of the Other, Volume II, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 143-195.
DESCARTES, R. (1996). «Dedicatory Letter to the Sorbonne», in Meditations on First Philosophy with Selections from the Objection and Replies (revised edition), trans. en. J. Cottingham (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3-6.
— (1964). «Meditations on First Philosophy», in E. Anscombe and P. T Geach (trad., eds.). Descartes Philosophical Writings, London: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 59-109.
DRUMMOND, J. (1990). Husserlian Intentionality and Non-Foundational Realism: Noema and Object. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
GADAMER, H. G., «Discussion», in The Later Husserl and the Idea of Phenomenology (Analaecta Husserliana, The Yearbook of Phenomenological Research, Vol II). A. Tymieniecka (ed.). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 160-169.
GSCHWANDTNER, C. (2013). Postmodern Apologetics: Arguments for God in Contemporary Philosophy, New York: Fordham University Press.
HEIDEGGER, M. (2003). Four Seminars: Le Thor 1966, 1968, 1969, Zähringen 1973, trad. en. A. Mitchell and F. Raffoul. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
HOPP, W. (2008). «Husserl on Sensation, Perception, and Interpretation», in Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 38 (2): 219-246.
HUSSERL, E. (2010). «Letter to Rudolph Otto (1919)», Letter R I Otto 5.111.19, Husserl Archives Leuven, trad. en. T. Sheehan, in T. Sheehan (ed.) Heidegger the Man and the Thinker. Chicago: Precedent Publishing, 23-5.
— (1989). Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy, Second Book: studies in the phenomenology of constitution, trad. en. R. Rojcewicz – A. Schuwer, Dordrecht: Springer.
— (1990). The Idea of Phenomenology (1907), trad. en. W. P. Alston and G. Nakhnikian. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
— (1983). Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy: First Book (1913); trad. En. F. Kersten, Dordrecht: Springer.
— (1960). Cartesian Meditations: An Introduction to Phenomenology (1929), trad. en. D. Cairns. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
— (1950). Die Idee Der Phänomenologie: Funf Vorlesungen, Walter Biemel (ed.). Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.
LAYCOCK, S. W. (1986). «Introduction: Toward an Overview of Phenomenological Theology», in Essays in Phenomenological Theology. J. G. Hart and S. W. Laycock (eds.), New York: SUNY Press, 1-22.
— (1986). «The Intersubjective Dimensions of Husserl’s Theology», in Essays in Phenomenological Theology, J. G. Hart and S. W. Laycock (eds.), New York: SUNY, 169-186.
JANICAUD, D. (2000). Phenomenology and the Theological Turn: the French Debate. New York: Fordham University Press.
MARION, J-L. (1999). Cartesian Questions: Method and Metaphysics. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.
MCNEILLY, J. (2015). «Faith and Doubt: the noematic dimensions of belief in Husserl », in Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 29 (3): 346-355.
— (2016). «Shining a Light on the Darkness of God: Derrida in conversation with Husserl». Conference Paper, Australasian Society of Continental Philosophy, Annual Meeting, Deakin University, Melbourne, 5-7 December, 2016. Retrieved from:
NAKHNIKIAN, G. (1990). «Introduction (1964)», in E. Husserl. The Idea of Phenomenology, trad. En. W. P. Alston and G. Nakhnikian. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, ix-xxii.
RUDOLPH, O. (1959). The Idea of the Holy, trad. en. J. W. Harvey. Middlesex: Penguin Books.
SIMMONS, A. J. (2010). «Continuing to Look for God in France: On the relationship between phenomenology and theology», in Words of Life: New Theological Turns in French Phenomenology. New York: Fordham University Press, 15-29.
SOKOLOWSKI, R. (2000). Introduction to Phenomenology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
