The Review and Evaluation of Schleiermacher's View about the Nature of Mystical Experience and Knowledge

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant professor of department of philosophy, Research Center of Islamic culture and thought

2 Professor of philosophy, Qom University

Abstract

Schleiermacher is the founder of a trend whose members regard mystical experience as a kind of feelings and affections. Of course, he believes that this kind of experience is not devoid of any epistemic aspect and, differentiating between two kinds of feelings and two kinds of awareness, holds that mystical experience is a kind of feelings which has a direct awareness in which the distance between perceiver and perceived is removed. He uses the concept of "absolute dependency" to explain this particular feeling and awareness which form the nature of mystical experience and knowledge. Absolute dependency is a one-directional relationship in which man has no freedom and choice by himself. This feeling includes and explains the concept of God, world and man. Man and world are the absolute dependent and God as the other side of this dependency (Absolute Independent). Several criticisms have directed against this view, including doubt about (gradation in) the possibility of realization of non-conceptual awareness, doubt about (gradation in) the possibility of realization of unintentional awareness, ambiguity in the existence and nature of affections containing knowledge, etc. which are discussed at the end of present paper.

Keywords

References

  1. براون، کالین (1375). فلسفه و ایمان مسیحی، ترجمه: طا طه وس میکائیلیان، تهران: علمی و فرهنگی.
  2. هوردن، ویلیام (1368). راهنمای الاهیات پروتستان، ترجمه: طا طه وس میکائیلیان، تهران: علمی و فرهنگی.
  3. هیوم، دیوید (1356). تاریخ طبیعی دین، ترجمه: حمید عنایت، تهران: خوارزمی، چاپ دوم.

4. Clements, Keith (1987). Schleiermacher Pioneer of Modern Theology, London: Collins.

5. Gerrish, Brain (1984). A Prince of the Church: Schleiermacher and the Begginnings of Modern Theology, Philadelphia: Fortress.

6. Jantzen, Grace (1995). Power, Gender and Christian Mysticism, Cambridge University Press.

7. Kant, Immanuel (1998). Critique of Pure Reason, Translated & Edited by: Paul Guyer & Allen W. Wood, New York: Cambridge University Press.

8. Mackintosh, H. R. (1937). Types of Modern Theology, London: Collins.

9. Otto, Rudolf (1957). The Idea of the Holy, 2nd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  1. Proudfoot, Wayne (ed.) (1983). William James and a Science of Religion, Reexperiencing the Varieties of Religious Experience, New York: Columbia University Press.
  2. Richards, Glyn (1989). Towards a Theology of Religions, London and New York: Routledge.
  3. Rowe, William (2007). Philosophy of Religion: An Introduction, Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Ed. 4.
  4. Schenk, H. G. (1987). The Mind of the Eurupean Romantics, Oxford: OUP.
  5. Schleiermacher, Friedrich (1963). Christian Faith, ed. And tr. H. R. Makintosh and J. S Stewart, New York: Harper and Row.
  6. Schleiermacher, Friedrich (1985). On Religion, New York: Harper.
  7. Ward, Keith (1994). Religion and Revelation, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Send comment about this article
CAPTCHA Image

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics