The issues confronted in the work of contextualizing religion within the period of enlightenment are still relevant today. Schleiermacher asks that we consider religion as something separate from the state and politics in order to see it in its truest form. In doing so in his Fifth Speech he refers specifically to Judaism, granting that although it is born in history its religious character is separate. I wonder what Schleiermacher would say about the Jewish state of Israel. How is Schleiermacher to be justified in considering Christianity to be “…more glorious, more sublime, more worthy of adult humanity, more deeply penetrating into the spirit of systematic religion, and extending farther over the whole universe”? His only defense seems to be in his historical and societal bias, yet upon what grounds should we consider the validity of his preceding notions of intuition as they are subject to the same vulnerabilities? It seems that Schleiermacher would like to simultaneously allow religion to be felt by individuals in a multiplicity of expressions while still maintaining that Christianity is the most conducive form. If we were to construct a spectrum of secularism with France on one end, Israel on the other and the United States somewhere in the middle which would most resemble the level of separation Schleiermacher had in mind? Furthermore Schleiermacher’s discussion of religious variety is limited to the “positive” western traditions. Would he allow that Buddhism or Islam is actually the truest representation of religious feeling today since they are most widespread? If Schleiermacher considers religion to be that which facilitates morality within a community how does he justify that the values of one religion to be more correct than another? For example in the United States in the case of gay marriage and abortion some would argue that religion is precisely amoral. Finally what is most troubling with the conclusion of Schleiermacher’s Fifth Speech is his allusion to the sanctity of the written word. According to Schleiermacher it seems the ability to understand a text is just as much the responsibility of the reader as it is of the writer. He does in fact seem rely on the temporal nature of what he writes allowing that his words are finite and the world will likely change. There seems to be an overall tone of neurotic awareness of his act of writing throughout the entire text.
Interesting perspective. It was just a little hard to follow your change in thought because you didn't use paragraphs.
ReplyDeleteBut its definitely obvious that Schleiermacher's tolerance is biased and it seems to defeat his endeavor to universalize the intuition. I don't understand your opinion about his neuroticism though. Why is his awareness a bad thing?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletewow that idea completely slipped my mind as I read Schleiemacher.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, let me try to understand your view, if religion is based off of intuition then why is he supporting Christianity over the other world religions?
It seems as if Schleiermacher really likes Christianity. I personally don't know much about him, but if his life circumstances were taken into consideration (how he grew up, the people he was raised around), then I'm sure Christianity would best suit his lifestyle. Even though the basis of religion is intuition, each religion has its own idiosyncrasies and faithful followers generally follow those rules; maybe during the time he was living pigs were the only food?
To add on to this post, it is indeed strange for Schleiermacher to subordinate all the other religions (aside from Christianity) when he places so much importance on how normal it is for everybody to attain his/her own religion. He emphasizes the fact that not everybody must “connect himself with one of the existing forms of religion” (224 Hackett Ed.), but that one can also create his/her own religion. He clearly affirms that as long as we are human, every man experiences emotions in a different way; this justifies one's choice of choosing or making his/her own religion. Yet, if it is true that he favors Christianity, on what basis does he consider it the the highest form of religion? And, why is it that he places Christianity above all other religions, if he admits to this heterogeneous nature of humans?
ReplyDelete