Schleiermacher on Feeling - Speech 2

A few days ago I mentioned how Schleiermacher has received a lot of criticism over basing religion not in metaphysics (philosophy/speculation/system) or in morality (codes/duties) but in intuition and feeling. A friend commented that his primary problem with Schleiermacher is that this move toward feeling cuts Schleiermacher's religion off from love because love is more than a feeling and must be connected with morality (i.e. with duty maybe?) In my post I raised the suggestion that a problem with feeling is that it may be too subjective or individualistic. If, however, Schleiermacher is not as individualistic as he has been made out to be by his accusers and if, instead, religion requires relationship then he may be able to respond to the subjectivism objection. Moreover, if religion requires inter-subjectivity (i.e. mutually dependent relationships with others) he might also be able to respond to my friend's concerns that Schleiermacher's religion is without a love that acts.

I re-read Speech 2 again yesterday. On pages 119-120 of Richard Crouter's (Cambridge) translation of On Religion we read the following:

As long as the first man was alone with homself and nature, the deity did indeed rule over him; it addressed the man in various ways, but h did not understand it, for he did not answer it; his paradise was beautiful and the stars shone down on him from a beautiful heaven, but the sens for the world did not open up within him; he did not even develop within his soul; but his heart was moved by a longing for a world, and so he gathered before him the animal creation to see if one might perhaps be formed from it. Since the deity recognized that his world would be nothing so long as man was alone, it created for him a partner, and now, for the first time, the world rose before his eyes. In the flesh and bone of his bone he discovered humanity, and in humanity the world. (My emphasis)

And then on the next page he writes:

All our history is contained in this saga ... In order to intuit the world and to have religion, man must first have found humanity, and he finds it only in love and through love.

The quotations are the bedrock for Schleiermacher for how human beings access and experience the Absolute.* His arguments go on for pages and pages, but it is fair to summarize with the above quotes: Feeling and Intuition ARE NOT subjective, individualistic matters. They are rooted in concrete histories, times and places. "The mind, if it is to produce and sustain religion, must be intuited in a world." So religion is foremost an inter-subjective experience. Moreover, this inter-subjectivity for Schleiermacher entails love. Inter-subjectivity for him, in order for religion to be possible, is by its nature a relationship of love. In other words, true religion depends on love.

Now, in order to address my friend's point we need to see that love for Schleiermacher entails some kind of action, morality or duty. It cannot be just a warm, happy feeling. But we're making progress, are we not? Hopefully, I'll be able to address this point soon.

*Writing in his Romantic context, Schleiermacher and friends used terms like the Infinite, the Absolute and so on in attempt to encompass everything that anyone might consider a first principle. So the Absolute and the Infinite for Schleiermacher would have been God, but it would not be fair to substitute them with God because he was not making that identification in the Speeches.

The big and small ideas behind antithesizing: initial thoughts

Hi, So I'm just starting this thing - both the blog and antithesizing in public - and time will tell whether it's something that will last. I'm suspicious of myself. But whatever. I like lots of different things, and so the blog will reflect that diversity of interests. From beer and brewing to theology to Africa to cultural critique to academic review. Labda hata kiswahili kidogo (i.e. perhaps even a little kiswahili).

I believe in the Church and I'm committed to her well-being. I'm not Roman Catholic (yet), though I imagine my deep appreciation for the Roman Church and frustration with Protestants who slight it will come out in posts from time to time. I've never really had to identify with any branch of Protestantism. I spent many years in a generically evangelical setting. My early years were spent in fire-and-brimstone baptist circles, and while that bugged me for a while, I've come to see the many ways it has formed me - I think - for the better. Now, I'd probably fall into some category of Reformed Christianity, very broadly speaking. That is, if Reformed to you means Schleiermacher and co., then I'm Reformed; if the Reformed, however, are found strictly in the company of the Westminster Divines then I'm probably not. Calvin + the Westminster Assembly + a certain reading Schleiermacher = Evangelical Presbyterian Church as the best fit for me right now. Unfortunately, there are no nearby EPC churches. And Christine and I are trying to commit to going to church where we live. But if I continue on towards ordination, my hope at the present is still to pursue ordination in the EPC. I'm still working on a friend of mine who "knows people" in the EPC to advise me along the way.

I usually don't care much for sectarian line-drawing, but I indulge it momentarily because sectarianisms and labels and identity boundaries are so deeply imbedded in American socio-cultural experience that being upfront about them can be helpful for sorting out who we are and who we'd like to be.

And one of my purposes - if not the purpose - in staking this electronic space here is that I am looking for a place to be transparent about what I think about, what concerns me, what I love and what frustrates me. It's called "Antithesis" because all of those thoughts that we all have that we don't share because they might not come out right or because it's not really something we actually hold or believe - all of those thoughts are integral to what we do actually think and believe. But often we probably fear being misunderstood or misrepresented and can't pose a counter-point to the prevailing view. Well, to some degree, this thing for me is all about the counter-point. It's not about cyncism; I find I'm often cynical about cyncism. See, that's an example of antithesizing: at least giving the alternate view some airtime. Not because I think alternate views are always correct or the truth or because I want to support others' views or whatever, but because there's simply value in hearing another view clearly and understanding it well.

So... There are only ideas and actions. Here, idea = action and action = idea. And now I'm getting to bogged down into my own unsettled philosophical questions. Am I a pragmatist yet? A Hegelian too? Is meaning a function of social use and performance? In studying Paul's letter to the churches of Galatia the other day, I started to wonder if Paul was a Kantian. Hah! Well, we'll see what happens. Enough for now since this kind of self-statment and introspection is one of the least popular genres of blogging among the blog-reading public.

To any who may read this: participate as you like, ask questions, voice concern, offer insight, correct and critique, criticize, encourage. "Speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ." (Ephesians 4.15)