COMPARATIVE RELIGION, TAXONOMIES AND 19TH CENTURY PHILOSOPHIES OF SCIENCE:

مرکز و کتابخانه مطالعات اسلامی به زبان های اروپایی

منو

" COMPARATIVE RELIGION, TAXONOMIES AND 19TH CENTURY PHILOSOPHIES OF SCIENCE: "
Thomas Ryba

Document Type	:	AL
Record Number	:	1078819
Doc. No	:	LA122448
Call No	:	‭10.1163/156852701752245596‬
Language of Document	:	English
Main Entry	:	Thomas Ryba
Title & Author	:	COMPARATIVE RELIGION, TAXONOMIES AND 19TH CENTURY PHILOSOPHIES OF SCIENCE: [Article] : CHANTEPIE DE LA SAUSSAYE AND TIELE\ Thomas Ryba
Publication Statement	:	Leiden: Brill
Title of Periodical	:	Numen
Date	:	2001
Volume/ Issue Number	:	48/3
Page No	:	309–338
Abstract	:	"It has been generally recognized that an important influence on the development of early phenomenologies of religion was Hegel. It is the purpose of this paper to provide a deep reading of the phenomenologies of C.P. Tiele and P.D. Chantepie de la Saussaye in order to demonstrate the extent of Hegel's influence on their thought. This demonstration proceeds deconstructively (in the Heideggerian, not the Derridean, sense) to establish (a) the questionability of each thinker's claim to represent a unitary science of religion and to show (b) the oppositions between the respective notions of taxonomy and the notions of science of religion. The paper concludes by suggesting that although both thinkers may have appropriated some Hegelian evolutionary elements, their respective conceptions of science were also influenced by the "received" view that lay behind the writings of scientific phenomenologists such as Robison, Hamilton and Whewell. It has been generally recognized that an important influence on the development of early phenomenologies of religion was Hegel. It is the purpose of this paper to provide a deep reading of the phenomenologies of C.P. Tiele and P.D. Chantepie de la Saussaye in order to demonstrate the extent of Hegel's influence on their thought. This demonstration proceeds deconstructively (in the Heideggerian, not the Derridean, sense) to establish (a) the questionability of each thinker's claim to represent a unitary science of religion and to show (b) the oppositions between the respective notions of taxonomy and the notions of science of religion. The paper concludes by suggesting that although both thinkers may have appropriated some Hegelian evolutionary elements, their respective conceptions of science were also influenced by the "received" view that lay behind the writings of scientific phenomenologists such as Robison, Hamilton and Whewell."
Location & Call number	:	‭10.1163/156852701752245596‬