Peter Klein. Passion for Nothing: Kierkegaard’s Apophatic Theology.

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 118-120
Author(s):  
Jason Stephens
2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 477-485 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roman Murawski

Abstract Nicholas of Cusa was first of all a theologian but he was interested also in mathematic and natural sciences. In fact philosophico-theological and mathematical ideas were intertwined by him, theological and philosophical ideas influenced his mathematical considerations, in particular when he considered philosophical problems connected with mathematics and vice versa, mathematical ideas and examples were used by him to explain some ideas from theology. In this paper we attempt to indicate this mutual influence. We shall concentrate on the following problems: (1) the role and place of mathematics and mathematical knowledge in knowledge in general and in particular in theological knowledge, (2) ontology of mathematical objects and their origin, in particular their relations to God and their meaning for the description of the world and physical reality, (3) infinity in mathematics versus infinity in theology and their mutual relations and connections. It will be shown that—according to Nicholas—mathematics and mathematical thinking are tools of rationalization of theology and liberating it in a certain sense from the trap of apophatic theology.


2017 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
pp. 705 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tiegue Vieira Rodrigues
Keyword(s):  

***Revisitando o Conhecimento a partir de Falsidade***Os defensores da teoria do Conhecimento a partir de Falsidade (KFF) nos apresentam exemplos putativos de conhecimento inferencial nos quais um sujeito S, supostamente, adquire conhecimento através de uma inferência competente realizada a partir de uma falsidade. Se eles estiverem certos, teremos que enfrentar alguns problemas importantes para a epistemologia do raciocínio. No entanto, neste artigo, argumentarei que não há conhecimento a partir de falsidades (KFF), os casos apresentados pelos defensores de KFF não constituem casos de conhecimento inferencial genuíno e a reação intuitiva de atribuir conhecimento ao sujeito em tais casos não tem nenhuma relação com a falsidade. Eu irei direcionar a minha oposição à KFF através de duas objeções que ofereço à explicação apresentada por Peter Klein em seu artigo "Useful False Beliefs" (2008). Em particular, mostro que a explicação de Klein falha porque ela (i) é incapaz de demonstrar como uma falsidade pode fornecer um status epistêmico positivo à crença inferida para torná-la conhecimento; e (ii) ela é incompatível com uma noção tácita e amplamente aceita de inferência.


2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-30
Author(s):  
Karl Schudt ◽  

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 21-34
Author(s):  
William Wainwright

Recent students of mysticism have sharply distinguished monistic from theistic mysticism. The former is more or less identified with the empty consciousness experience and the latter with the love mysticism of such figures as Bernard of Clairvaux. I argue that a sharp distinction between the two is unwarranted. Western medieval mystics, for example, combined the apophatic theology of Dionysius the Areopagite with the erotic imagery of the mystical marriage. Their experiences were clearly theistic but integrally incorporated ‘monistic moments’. I conclude by discussing Nelson Pike’s claim that these monistic moments were themselves phenomenologically theistic.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document