In his second speech, Schleiermacher holds the idea of intuition as the central experience necessary for humanity to have religion. Unlike Kant, he regards the entirety of religion outside the realm of morality or metaphysics which he considers subordinate to it. Key to understanding the immediacy and seemingly all encompassing essence of religion is his notion of the intuition of the universe through which one, “should be able to find every place in religion from which [one] may determine its essence and its limits” (24).
Intuition seems to exist in the both in the realm of the infinite and finite as if when one is born, they are given a sense of the infinite which they might be able to recognize in their lifetime. Specifically intuition is, “what you thus intuit and perceive is not the nature of things, but their action upon you” (24). It is the immediate perception and apprehension of an object by an individual at any one moment. It proceeds from the influence of intuited and is, “grasped, apprehended, and conceived” by the one who intuits thereby, “awakening” a sense of the infinity of the universe in a person (24). In addition, in order for one to intuit they, “must necessarily be seized by various feelings” (29). By fusing emotions to intuition, Schleiermacher thereby makes someones sense of intuition impossible to be that of another's and through their drive to intuit the universe, they can become religious. Not religious in the sense of good and evil (which would be of the realm of morality) but in, “the particular manner in which the universe presents itself to you in your intuitions and determines the uniqueness of your individual religion” (29). However, Schleiermacher makes it clear that intuition is not to be confused with opinion which is of speculation or morality and are supposedly devoid of feeling.
Schleiermacher's assertions give rise to some questions for which he provides no clear answers. According to his definitions of intuition and opinion, if two people were to differ in matters of morality they would have differing opinions thereby limiting themselves to the finite, cut off from pulse of infinite religion. But two people with different intuitions are not limited because they feel the intuition of the universe. However, the moral are debating matters of good or evil while the religious do not bother themselves with such matters. Schleiermacher's virtuous portrayal of intuition lacks an explanation of why exactly this perception is as glorious as he describes and is not also equally possible of chaotic destruction. He places intuition on a mighty pedestal where, “Only the drive to intuit, if oriented to the infinite, places the mind in unlimited freedom; only religion saves it from the most ignominious fetters of opinion and desire” though it is not clear why opinion and morality is devoid of feeling which makes it separate from opinion (28). If religious feelings, “inhibit the strength of our action and invite us to calm and dedicated enjoyment” (30) then are the religious destined to be not ones of action but rather passive admirers indifferent to war or peace but always preoccupied in the ecstasy of the infinite? Hopefully, class discussion and further reading will illuminate more of Schleiermacher's notions of intuition and religion.
Unfortunately we didn't get to talk about your question in class today.
ReplyDeleteIf religious feelings, “inhibit the strength of our action and invite us to calm and dedicated enjoyment” (30) then are the religious destined to be not ones of action but rather passive admirers indifferent to war or peace but always preoccupied in the ecstasy of the infinite?
It seems as if you are right in some ways, for example there are monks(extremely religious people) of every faith who are calm, and very passive people who feel their way through life by using their intution. Although, since intuition is mixed in with reason it can be safe to say that they would want a better world with less violence/sins if they are truely religious. In opposition to the idea of them being indifferent to war or peace and deluded by the infinite, it would be more rational for them to want the best possible outcome for the problem(s) in the world.
Even though a monk would not slap George W. Bush for sending troops to foreign nations without the approval of congress, they do have opinions and voices which are heard and accepted by many of the citizens.
I also imagined monks when reading about his notion of religion but there is still a fundamental problem I came to when comparing monks to Schleiermacher's religious persons. Monks, as far as I know, strive for virtuous union with God. With Schl. I would think that a person could theoretically strive for wicked union with the infinite, though they are passive observers.
ReplyDeleteI hope that our next class will illuminate on the relationship between religion and morals and action though religion is in a higher realm than the rest.