The article raises the question of the “crisis of modernity” and compares two studies: “The Secular Age” by C. Taylor and “The Rhythm of Being” by R. Panikkar.
The article compares two assessments of our modern condition: Charles Taylor’s A Secular Age(of 2007) and Raimon Panikkar's The Rhythm of Being(of 2010).
KEY WORDS: modernity, secularism, C. Taylor, R. Panikkar.
KEY WORDS: modernity, secularity, Charles Taylor, Raimon Panikkar.
And when they looked at the sky, during His ascension, suddenly two men in white clothes appeared to them and said: “Men of Galilee! Why are you standing and looking at the sky? This Jesus, who has ascended from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw Him ascending into heaven.”
Acts of the Apostles, 1:10-11.
The time in which we live is usually called - at least in relation to the West - the time of "modernity", sometimes adding the adjective "late modernity" or the prefix "post-" ("postmodernity"). The word "modernity" itself is rather vague; literally it just means “the time of newness” or “the time of innovation.” Therefore, some additional clarification is needed about what kind of novelty we are talking about. The era of “modernity” is also called the “age of reason” or the time of enlightenment and science, thus separating this era from the time that preceded it, which is perceived as a time of unreason, metaphysical speculation, intellectual obscurantism and general darkness. With this understanding, "modernity" for many people, including those who advocate scientific and social progress, is a source of joy and exultation; something that deserves unconditional support and development. But, as is well known, along with this chorus of rejoicings, other voices have been heard for quite some time, pointing to the dark underbelly of “modernity” - to what Max Weber called the “disenchantment” of the world (die Entzauberung der Welt), and others even more dramatically called it "the death of God" or "the flight of the gods." In more recent times, statements have appeared about a certain deep-seated crisis of “modernity” - a crisis manifested in a slide towards materialism, consumerism and irreligion, as well as in a general “loss of meaning”.
Here I want to look at two very sophisticated and philosophically bold studies of our modern condition: Charles Taylor's A Secular Age , 2007) and the book “The Rhythm of Being” by Raymond Panikkar , 2010). Both books are highly modified texts of the Gifford Lectures, given by the authors in 1999 and 1989, respectively. From the very beginning, I must warn: neither one nor the other author belongs to the extreme camps - that is, neither one nor the other is either a reckless “praiser” or an unconditional “condemner” of the modern age. There are many similarities between these two thinkers. Both write about some of the glaring flaws that characterize modernity, especially today; both lament primarily the lack of religiosity or spirituality. The differences between the two authors are mainly in the details of their diagnoses and proposed healing methods.
According to Taylor, the modern age, which he calls the “secular age,” is marked by a descent into secular agnosticism and into “exclusive humanism,” but above all by what is called the “immanent schema.” ("immanent frame"), which does not include or marginalizes theistic "transcendence".
Panikkar is also concerned with the “loss of meaning,” but does not consider it to be caused by the rejection of (mono)theistic transcendence; He does not consider secularity or secularism as such to be the cause, since, in his opinion, faith itself is temporal, that is, it exists in time, and thus is necessarily connected with a certain age (“saeculum”). Panikkar does not attach much importance to the immanence-transcendence dichotomy, but draws our attention to the pervasive “forgetfulness of being” that is occurring in our time - an oblivion that can only be overcome by the renewal of the memory of the divine as a holistic event in the “cosmotheandric” mode ( see below).
« A Secular Age by Charles Taylor
At the very beginning of his massive study, Taylor distinguishes three types (types) of secularity (or “secular”):
“secularity 1” - the departure of faith from public life (from the public sphere);
“secularity 2” - depletion or disappearance of faith among certain (individual) people;
“secularity 3” is the disappearance of the very conditions under which a common faith shared by people is possible.
In the first type of secularity, the public sphere is considered “emptied of God and from any reference to a higher reality.” In the second type of secularity, there is “a decline in religious faith and religious practice; people turn away from God.” The third type involves larger changes, namely: “The transition from a society in which belief in God is unquestioned and, in fact, unproblematic, to one in which faith is considered only one of the possible choices, and often not the easiest one.” choice." In this third sense, secularity is much more than the liberation of the public sphere from the divine or the loss of the individual desire to believe: secularity in this sense affects “the whole context of understanding in which our moral, spiritual and religious experience takes place.” With this approach, an age or society should be called secular or non-secular “depending on the presence or absence of conditions for spiritual experience and spiritual quest.” As Taylor emphasizes, in his research he is primarily concerned with the third type of secularity. He writes: “So I want to consider our society as secular in this third sense. Briefly, I would describe it as follows: I want to identify and trace the shift by which we have moved from a society where it was almost impossible not to believe in God, to a society where faith, even for the most adamant believers, is but one human possibility among others.<…>Belief in God is no longer an axiom” [Taylor 2007, 2-3].
In an effort to describe more specifically and in detail the meaning of secularity as the experience of a modern person, Taylor introduces the concept of “exclusive humanism” or “self-sufficient humanism.” Such humanism is characterized by disdain for the transcendent. The attitude towards such a concept as “fullness of life” is indicative: is it possible to achieve this fullness exclusively by human forces or is it necessary to go “beyond” the human. Taylor writes: “The obvious difference here is this: for believers, the fullness of life is impossible without relating it to God, that is, to something that is beyond human life and/or nature; for non-believers this is not the case at all.” It can be said that from the point of view of believers, the fullness or completeness of life is acquired as a gift, while for non-believers the source of this fullness/completeness is “within” themselves. This appeal to internal resources can take various forms. In the era “Modernity” most often refers to the power of reason and rational knowledge. However, such self-sufficiency can also be justified by “strict naturalism.” In this case, the sources of the fullness of being are not transcendental, but “are found in Nature, or in our own inner depths, or both.” Examples of such naturalism are “the romantic critique of disengaged reason and some of the environmental ethics of our day, in particular deep ecology.” Other forms of self-sufficiency or self-reliance are various versions of Nietzscheanism and existentialism, which see the source of strength in "our sense of courage and greatness - our ability to face the inevitable and still go on living." We find other varieties of this worldview in recent versions of postmodernism, which, while rejecting the claims of a self-sufficient reason, nevertheless “do not offer any external sources of power”[Taylor 2007, 8-10] .
In Taylor's subsequent discussion, the distinction between “inside” and “outside” (“within-without”) is further reinforced by the use of binary oppositions such as immanence/transcendence and natural/supernatural. Taylor writes: “The shift of the very basis, or, better said, the destruction of the previous basis, becomes even more obvious if we turn to our current distinctions such as immanent - transcendental, natural - supernatural<...>It is this shift of the very foundation, this shift of the entire context in which we seek and find the fullness of life, that I call the advent of the secular age in the third (from the ones I have highlighted) sense<...>. This is what I want to describe and perhaps also (very incompletely) explain.” Overall, “modernity,” according to Taylor, acquires the character of a “secular age” when preference is given to immanence over transcendence and self-sufficient humanism over divine providence. Taylor writes: "The great discovery of the [modern] West is the discovery of an immanent order of Nature which can be systematically understood and explained in its own terms." This idea of the immanent includes the denial of “any form of interpenetration between Nature (Nature), on the one hand, and the “supernatural” on the other” - or at least doubt in the existence of anything like that. Taylor adds: "The definition of religion in terms of the distinction between the immanent and the transcendent is tailored to the standards of our culture." From the point of view of humanism, the main question is “whether people recognize something outside their lives, transcendental in relation to their lives”[Taylor 2007, 13-16].
According to Taylor, the core of the modern secular shift is the question of the fullness of human existence, of human “flourishing,” or, in other words, the question of “what is a successful, fulfilling, fully realized life?” And here an intriguing radicalism emerges: not only are the secular goals of human self-fulfillment criticized, but the very idea of human flourishing is called into question.
Taylor notes that in earlier times it was still possible to imagine that the best life involved the search for “a good that is somewhere outside, that is, a good independent of human flourishing.” In this case, the highest human aspirations could include the desire “for something other than human flourishing.” Under the auspices of exclusive or self-sufficient humanism, the very possibility of such higher aspirations atrophied or disappeared altogether.
Let us formulate the same thing differently: “secularity 3” in Taylor’s sense arose along with the possibility and even probability of exclusive humanism. According to Taylor, one can offer this “one-line description” of the differences between earlier times and the secular age: “a secular age is a time when it becomes possible to forget all the purposes of human existence except human flourishing.” This is the key connection “between secularity and self-sufficient humanism.” In traditional religion, especially Christianity, another path is proposed, namely: “the possibility of transformation,<...>which takes us beyond mere human perfection." To follow this path, one must rely on “a higher power, on the transcendental God.” And the Christian faith requires “that we see in our lives something beyond the “natural” path from birth to death; [so that we know that] our life extends beyond “this life”” [Taylor 2007, 19-20].
Here I cannot set myself the task of presenting, albeit briefly, Taylor’s complex and lengthy work; For my purposes, it is enough to briefly review the central chapter of the book, which explores the above-mentioned binary opposition. The chapter is called “The Immanent Frame.” It reformulates the concept of “exclusive humanism” in terms of the “buffer self.” According to Taylor, modern secularism leads to “the replacement of the porous self by the buffer self,” that is, a self for which “the concepts of spirits, moral forces, purposive causes are almost inconceivable, incomprehensible.” By “buffering” we mean “interiorization,” that is, going into the “inner world of thoughts and feelings - and into exploring this world.” Examples of such an inward turn, according to Taylor, are romanticism, the “ethic of authenticity” and other similar movements that encourage us to “recognize ourselves as possessors of inner depths.” Among the consequences of this inward turn are the “atrophy of previous ideas about the cosmic order” and the development of ideas about self-sufficiency and self-development of the individual, as well as the development of “instrumental individualism” - that is, the exploitation of the world's resources solely for the sake of individual profit. Summarizing the various shifts and mutations that have taken place and are taking place in the era of secular “ modernity,” Taylor arrives at this succinct formulation: “So the buffer identity of the disciplined [self-sufficient] individual exists in a constructed social space in which instrumental rationality is the key value and time is comprehensively secular [like clock time]. And all this constitutes what I want to call the “immanent scheme.” One more fundamental circumstance should be taken into account: “this scheme forms a “natural” order, opposed to the “supernatural” order; “immanent” world, opposed to a possible “transcendent” world”[Taylor 2007, 539-542] .
Taylor acknowledges that the boundary between the two "worlds" is not always clearly demarcated. Although the immanent order is ready to “peel off the transcendent,” sometimes the former makes concessions to the latter. This occurs in various types of "civil religion", as well as in various spiritual movements such as Pentecostalism or "romantic art". However, such concessions are half-hearted at best and do not pose a serious challenge and do not reduce the “moral appeal” of immanence, the this-worldliness of materialism and naturalism. Regarding the latter, Taylor remarks: “In the naturalistic denial of the transcendent we can see<...>such an ethical worldview that leads to closure” in the immanent, especially when this denial is combined with unconditional faith in modern natural science and related technical achievements. The development of modern civilization, inextricably linked with such a belief, can be considered “synonymous with the creation of a closed immanent scheme.” Of course, Taylor insists, the “moral appeal” of immanence is not absolutely forced or predetermined; it merely prevails, being the dominant impulse or the dominant possibility, leaving some space for other, repressed alternatives. Resisting the dominant scheme, some individuals feel the simultaneous influence of different, competing pulls - and this sometimes gives rise to a desire for radical departure, for a sharp “leap of faith” (à la Kierkegaard). However, this personal experience of cross-pressures does not challenge the basic structure of secular modernity.
According to Taylor's own concluding remarks, in his book he attempted to describe "the constitution of [secular] modernity" - and to show that this constitution emphasized "closed" or "horizontal" worlds, leaving little room for the "vertical" world. "or "transcendent"[Taylor 2007, 543, 547-549, 555-556].
Undoubtedly, Taylor's "Secular Age" is an intellectual tour de force, as well as an inspired defense of religious faith (in which the author sees an openness to transcendental realms). In an era dominated by materialism, consumerism and the reckless pursuit of pleasure, this book is a kind of call to awakening, a call to transformation, to what in Greek is called “ metanoia"(repentance). However, even those readers who appreciate the persuasiveness of this appeal will not be able to avoid the impression that the book is somewhat one-dimensional. Although the author again and again disavows the approach called “history by subtraction” (in which approach “modernity” is just culture minus faith), the overall picture presented in the book is precisely one of exhaustion and impoverishment: from a holistic framework favorable to transcendence to an “immanent scheme” hostile to this very transcendence.
Of course, this is not the only story that can be told—and it may not be the most compelling one. In Taylor's depiction, immanence and transcendence, this world and the world “beyond,” appear as immutable binary oppositions that know no change. Obviously, another (more convincing) narrative is possible, in which the immanent and the transcendent, the human and the divine, encounter each other in constantly new ways, which leads to profound transformations on both (all) sides. It is curious that Taylor's own earlier writings leaned in this direction. One of his most famous earlier books, Sources of the Self, told the development of ideas about the human self from antiquity to modernity in a much more nuanced way, without reducing the story to a transition from porosity. to "buffer closure". In the Secular Age, very little of the story told in The Sources of Self remains. Likewise, the "ethic of authenticity" (discussed in detail in one of Taylor's earlier books) now appears to be just another synonym for modern buffering and self-sufficiency. Even the movement towards personal religiosity - previously praised by the author using the example of William James - now seems to be relegated to the periphery of the “immanent scheme”. In his acceptance speech for the 1996 Virgin Mary Award, Taylor expressed “gratitude to Voltaire and others” for having “enabled us to live the Gospel in a purer manner”, free from “pressures on the conscience, often bloody »[Taylor 1999, 16-19] . In the “Secular Age” we no longer find anything like this.
One of the strangest and most disturbing features of the book seems to me to be the decisive preference for the “vertical” and “transcendental” over the “horizontal worlds.” Even if we agree that there has been a certain atrophy of the transcendental, “modernity” - called the “secular age” - has been and remains witness to important “horizontal” socio-political processes, by no means devoid of a religious register, such as: the destruction of ancient caste structures, the struggle against imperialism, the emancipation of slaves, the steady movement towards greater democracy, promising equal rights for all people regardless of gender, race or religion. It seems strange that in a book that seeks to define the essence of Western "modernity" these and similar processes are given very little attention, and the main emphasis is on "verticality" (the idea of which is largely associated with certain monotheistic beliefs). This emphasis looks especially strange in the context of a predominantly Christian narrative, if we remember that the Christian faith includes ideas about the incarnation of God.
The downgrading or relative denial of the horizontal dimension has clear implications for "humanism" and the relationship between the divine and the human. One might think that the concept of "exclusive humanism" leaves room for a more open and non-exclusive version of humanism. However, despite the passing recognition of the possibility of such a non-exclusive humanism, this topic is not developed in more detail. Likewise, the possibility of a symbiosis between the divine, the human, and the “natural” is sidestepped—such a trinitarian structure would require a radical openness of all parties involved. At one point, Taylor writes about the harmful influence of a certain “non-religious anti-humanism” (associated mainly with the name of Nietzsche and his followers). However, Taylor's own predilection for "verticality" conjures up the specter of radical religious anti-humanism - a specter that cannot help but frighten the current fashion for fundamentalist rhetoric [Taylor 2007, 19].
"Rhythm of Being" (“The Rhythm of Being”) by Raymond Panikkar
To some extent, the previous paragraph can serve as an introduction to the work of Raymond Panikkar, the famous Spanish-Indian philosopher and sage (who passed away on August 26, 2010). Among other things, Panikkar is known for developing the idea of a trinitarian structure of existence, the so-called “cosmotheandric” concept, according to which God (or the divine), humans and nature (or the cosmos) are connected in an indissoluble relationship of symbiosis. From the point of view of this concept, a radical division or opposition between the transcendental and the “immanent scheme” seems far-fetched or even simply unimaginable. It is obvious that Panikkar could not or would not write a book entitled The Secular Age, focused on the problem of immanence. First of all, the two words in this title are synonymous for Panikkar: the English word "age" is equivalent to the Latin word "saeculum". More importantly, the divine (or transcendental), from Panikkar's point of view, cannot be separated from the temporal (or "secular"), since this would jeopardize or completely destroy the close relationship of the divine and the human, and, accordingly, the above-mentioned trinitarian structure. In several earlier writings, which remain relevant in the context of this article, Panikkar put forward a distinctive, unconventional concept of the secular and secularism. Thus, in Worship and Secular Man (1973), Panikkar formulated this provocative thesis: “Only worship can prevent secularization from becoming inhuman; and only secularization can save the worship of God from meaninglessness.” And to this thesis he added an equally striking comment: “In our days, there is emerging what can be called a “hapax phenomenon,” that is, a unique phenomenon in the history of mankind: this, paradoxically, is not secularism, but the sacred quality of secularism” [Panikkar 1973 , 1-2, 10-13].
Panikkar never renounced this provocative thesis of his, including in “The Rhythm of Being.” As Panikkar notes in the foreword to this book (written at Pentecost 2009), the original title of his Gifford Lectures was different: “The Dwelling of the Divine in the Contemporary World” - and this phrase echoes with the idea of sacred secularity. Although the original title was changed for a number of reasons, the "leading thread" of the book, the author states, "remained the same." This is the idea of the fundamental "correlativity" or "relatedness" of the three main dimensions of reality: the cosmos (nature), human beings and God (or the divine) - and each of these dimensions is seen not as some static entity, but as an active and dynamic participant in the constant the ongoing transformation of reality (“Genesis”). According to Panikkar, in his book he wants to give new meaning to the fact that “ creatio continua” (“continuing creation”), in which each of us, according to Bonaventure, participates as a “co-creator”. The most important property of the above-mentioned “correlativity”/“correlation” is the close connection between the “temporal” (“temporal”) and the “eternal”, that is, between time and Being. “Time,” we read from Panikkar, “is not accidental in relation to life or to Being<...>Every existence is temporarily forever (tempiternal) <...>, and it is this observation that determines the theme of the book “The Rhythm of Being” - a theme that is eternally old and eternally new.” Instead of being bogged down in irreparable ruptures and dichotomies, this rhythm moves in a mode of mediation (in Latin - utrum, " and... and") and thereby - “in the language of Advaita" [Panikkar 2010, xxvi-xxx, xxxii].
Along with other gaps and dichotomies, “The Rhythm of Being” refuses to recognize the gap between the “vertical” and “horizontal” dimensions of reality. Despite its generally philosophical and meditative nature, Panikkar's book speaks more explicitly to current socio-political ills than the Canadian political thinker's book. For Panikkar, speculation about the “rhythm of Being” is not a form of escapism, but an integral part of the struggle for the “very meaning” of life and reality - a struggle that must take into account all dimensions of reality, even the most unsightly. “In a world of crisis, unrest and injustice,” asks Panikkar, “can we arrogantly distance ourselves from the plight of the vast majority of humanity and devote ourselves to considering “speculative” and/or “theoretical” questions? Are we not thereby becoming victims of the forces that support the status quo? And he continues, ever more passionately: “Can we “go about our business as usual” in a world in which half of our fellow humans are suffering because of other people? Isn’t any of our theorizing flawed simply because it comes from this flawed practice? Are we not puppets in the hands of a system of oppression, lackeys of the powers that be, hypocrites who succumb to the flattering charms of money, prestige and honor? Isn't it escapism to talk about the Trinity when the world is falling apart and people around us are suffering?<...>Do we see the constant terror under which the “natives” and the “poor” are forced to live? What do we really know about the hundreds of thousands killed, starved, tortured and disappeared, or about the millions of homeless refugees who have become a statistical commonplace in the media? [Panikkar 2010, 3-4] .
Panikkar believed that we cannot remain passive observers of what is happening in the world, but must actively participate in the affairs of this world - without falling into mindless or self-serving activism. In a divided and disoriented world, what is needed above all is a genuine search for the truth of Being and the meaning of life - which, in essence, means the search for justice and the “good life”. “We are all collectively responsible for the state of the world,” says Panikkar. In the case of intellectuals or philosophers, this responsibility means that they "must incarnate in their own time and perform the function of an example, a model." This, in turn, means the duty to “seek the truth (something that has saving power) and not pursue irrelevant verities.” The true search for truth, however, arises when there is some lack or felt need that creates the driving motivation for the search: “Without this thirst for “living water,” writes Panikkar, “there is no human life, no dynamism, no change. Thirst arises from lack of water." Thus, we are not dealing here with epistemological, logical or purely academic questions. The quest to find life and its truth stems ultimately from “our existential thirst for justice,” rather than from passing interest or curiosity: “We face more than an academic challenge. We are talking about spiritual efforts to live the life that is given to us.” [Panikkar 2010, 4-5] .
The quest to find life and its meaning, according to Panikkar, is not simply a human initiative or an individual “project” (in the Sartrean sense); but this is not some kind of fate imposed from outside or from above. The fact is that, fulfilling this desire, in the course of the search the person seeking himself is constantly transformed, and the goal of his search is constantly reformulated and improved. And this is where Panikkar's "holistic", non-dualistic approach comes into play - his idea of a constantly evolving and internally interacting ternary structure. He writes: "I would like to help awaken the dignity and responsibility of the individual by giving him a holistic vision," and this can only happen if - in addition to our human freedom - we are constantly receptive to "that freedom of Being, on which our human and cosmic dignity is based." From the point of view of this holistic approach, the various elements of reality are not isolated fragments, but interconnected partners in a symphony of symbiosis in which they are neither identical nor separate from each other. “Each entity,” asserts Panikkar, “is not just a part, but is an image of the Whole, no matter how minimal or imperfect that image may be.” This holistic approach (holism) is opposed to Cartesian dualistic (subject - object) epistemology, but is not identical to dialectical synthesis, in which differences are “removed” in a universal system à la Hegel. It is important to note that such holism is not identical to “totalism” or “totalitarianism”, because no one has the ability to embrace or survey the entire “Whole” as a whole. We read from Panikkar: “No single individual can claim to have a global vantage point. No individual can exhaust all possible approaches to reality.”
According to Panikkar, the most adequate language for expressing this holism is the Indian language of Advaita Vedanta: “Advaita offers an adequate approach<...>[because] it creates a basic order of intelligibility for intelligence, which does not work dialectically.” Unlike the method/order of rationalistic proofs, the method/order of Advaita is “pluralistic in nature” [Panikkar 2010, 6-7, 17, 23-24].
Transcending Cartesian epistemology, Advaitic holism establishes a close connection between human consciousness and reality, or (in other terms) between “thinking” and “Being”: thinking not only thinks O Being (as a certain external object), but Being itself permeates thinking as its animating basis. Panikkar writes: “The basic problem is the problem of thinking and Being.” And behind this problem arises the Vedantic concept of “Atman-Brahman” or the Thomist formula “ anima est quodammodo omnia» — “the soul is, in a way, everything” (Aristotle, De Anima III, 8, 431b).
Another, more universal language is the ontology language. As Panikkar writes: “For the subject of our reflections on the Whole there is the word “Being”, hallowed by tradition - and we will no longer avoid this word.” Further in the text of the book follows a passage that is not just associative, but is clearly similar to formulations à la Heidegger: “Thinking “thinks Being.” Being begins thinking; one might even venture to say: Being “thinking exists” » (cf. Heidegger’s phrase: “Being “causes” thinking”). Further we read: “Thinking is such only if it is imbued with Being. Thinking is the activity of Being. Being thinks; otherwise thinking would be nothing.” This does not mean, of course, that human thinking can ever exhaust Being - which would lead to "totalism" or "totalization". Thinking and Being echo each other, enter into dialogue - in a rhythmic “complementarity” or even in a spiritual embrace: “Seeing the particular in the Whole and the Whole in the particular is, in fact, another way of saying that this relationship is rhythmic. Rhythm is not an “eternal return” in static repetition, <...>[but] rather, the circle of life is in the dance between the particular and the Whole - in a dance in which the particular takes on more and more new forms of the Whole.” [Panikkar 2010, 22, 32-33] .
For human beings, participation in this dance is not carefree entertainment, but involvement in a transformative struggle, the goal of which is to overcome self-interest and acquisitive egocentrism. Panikkar writes that a “purification of the heart” is necessary for a person to join this dance, and quotes the words of Hugh of Saint-Victor: “To ascend to God, one must descend into oneself,” as well as a similar statement of Richard of Saint-Victor: “Let man will rise through itself - above itself." We are talking here not simply about an epistemic principle or a purely ethical obligation, but about an “ontological need.” As Panikkar emphasizes, the point here is not any esotericism or personal quirks, but this: we will not comprehend our real situation, either collectively or individually, “if our hearts are not pure, if our lives are not in harmony with ourselves.” , as well as with what surrounds us, and, ultimately, with the universe [with Being] as a whole.” Next comes a passage that may serve as the key to Panikkar's entire worldview: “Only if (when) the heart is pure, we are in harmony with reality, in harmony with reality, [only then] are we able to hear its voice, feel its dynamism and truly “ to speak” its truth, since we have become adequate to the movement of Being, the Rhythm of Being.” There follows a reference to the Chinese (Confucian) treatise Zhong Yun (translated by Ezra Pound): “Only the purest sincerity under heaven can bring about change” - and Panikkar’s comment: “Spiritual teachers of all ages agree that only if the waters of our spirit are calm , they can reflect reality without distortion" [Panikkar 2010, 34-35].
It is clear that some of Panikkar's key concepts—for example, the “cosmotheandric” vision or the “sacred secularity”—are not simply neutral devices of description, but concepts with dynamic, transformative potential. But it should also be noted - and this is of cardinal importance - that Panikkar's concepts are not a reflection of languid optimism or faith in a "better future", but are based on "hope": it is a hope "for the unseen", a hope for a promised possibility. As for “sacred secularity,” this possibility is not an empty dream; it is based on a new phenomenon ( novum) of our time: “This new does not seek refuge in the highest heights, neglecting the low world; it does not prefer the spiritual, neglecting the material; it does not seek the eternal at the expense of the temporal.” Otherwise say: new lies in the ever-increasing attention to integrity, in contrast to the usual emphasis on oppositions ( this world - That world, internal - external, secular - divine). New- it is also a growing awareness of the “Rhythm of Being” and a growing desire to participate in this rhythm. Panikkar writes: it becomes clear that “we are all participating in this Rhythm” and that “Rhythm is another name for Being, and Being is Trinity.” The last formulation once again refers to the “cosmotheandric” structure of reality. For, as Panikkar states, “rhythm is essential to all activities of gods, men and nature.” In more traditional language, one might say that rhythm is “the cosmotheandric order of the universe, mutual coexistence (perichoresis, circumference) root Trinity" [Panikkar 2010, 10, 36, 38-39, 42].
As with Taylor's book, it is not possible to subject Panikkar's book as a whole to detailed review and analysis. I'll just make a few additional comments.
One note about the traditional concept of monotheism. The concept of "perichoresis" combined with the emphasis on the "meta-transcendental" status of Being does not seem to be consistent with monotheistic "transcendence". In fact, Panikkar's text subjects this concept to severe criticism. At one point he writes: “I suspect that the future of unconditional theism is not very bright.” Panikkar's concern (beyond philosophical considerations) is that monotheism is implicitly associated with a heteronomous power structure (“God, King/Czar, President, Police”). “The titles of King and Master are well suited to a monotheistic God, and conversely, a human king can easily be imagined as a representative of God, and the royal retinue as a copy of the heavenly hierarchies.” This is the essence of “political theology.” Of course, traditional power hierarchies no longer prevail—despite repeated attempts to construct “theocracies.” In the context of modern democracy, a radical rethinking of monotheistic command structures is required. According to Panikkar, "despite some forms of fundamentalism, both Christianity and Judaism make it clear that human freedom and love for one's neighbor are the most essentially their messages to humanity." This means that every “divinely inspired” monotheism must ultimately recognize its essential connection with its “human perception” (and therefore with its “circuminsessio”). In other words, divine revelation “must fall on human earth in order to become the faith of people.” And this belief is “human experience, interpreted by people and perceived by people into the collective consciousness of a certain culture at a certain time.”
To sum up, Panikkar writes: “My position<...>is neither naive iconoclasm nor satisfaction with reformed monotheism. This position recognizes the importance of belief in God, but at the same time recognizes that God is not the only symbol of that third dimension that we call the Divine - and attempts to deepen the human experience of the Divine by defining the Divine in a more convincing way for our time. Panikkar 2010, 110, 128, 133-135].
In the central chapter of his book, “The Dwelling of the Divine,” Panikkar returns to the central importance of the trinitarian structure, understood as mutual coexistence(perichoresis, circumference). And he again argues that one-sided theism “no longer seems capable of satisfying the deepest needs of the modern worldview.” Such theism is being replaced by precisely perichoresis - in the sense of radical correlation, in which “everything is permeated by everything else.” From this point of view, “a person is something “more” than just an individual personality; The Divine is “different” from the Supreme Lord, and the world is something “other” than mere raw materials that can be plundered for use or profit.” Such a point of view cannot be described either in the language of transcendence or in the language of immanence, because “we cannot even think” of one without the other.
If so, where does the Divine reside? “I would say,” writes Panikkar, “that the space of man is in God, just as the space of God is in man.” With this approach, man and God are not two separate, independent entities: “There is no twos which includes man and God<...>, but they are not something one. Man and God are neither one, nor two" This again is the language of “Advaitist intuition” (and perhaps also “Unterschied” - “Discrimination” à la Heidegger). Advaita, says Panikkar, does not simply mean "monism" but "the overcoming of dualistic dialectics through love [or wisdom] at the highest level of reality." As for the trinitarian structure, Panikkar is very careful to expand this concept beyond traditional Christian theology. He argues that both “esoteric Judaism and esoteric Islam” know the trinitarian structure of the Divine. Thus, Philo of Alexandria interpreted the vision of Abraham ma and his three “guests” in a trinitarian spirit. The Muslim mystic Ibn Arabi spoke even more frankly: “My beloved is a three, || three, but only one; || many things appear as threes, || which are actually one." And the Chinese Taoist Yang Xiong (53 BC - 18 AD) believed that the “great secret” contains simultaneously “the path of Heaven, the path of Earth and the path of Man” [Panikkar 2010, 171-172, 174, 179 216, 230] .
Towards the end of the book, Panikkar returns to the theme of the relationship between contemplation and practice, thinking and action in transformative processes. He writes: “The transformation of the cosmos cannot be achieved either by passive contemplation or by activity in itself.” What is required is “synergy” so that human beings are seen neither as design engineers nor as victims: “The world does not “move” independently of us. We, too, are an effective factor in the fate of space. Otherwise, any talk about the dignity of man, about his “deification” or divine nature is just an illusion.” From the Advaita point of view, “‘man’ is a ‘microcosm’ or even a ‘microtheos’.” Therefore, human participation in the rhythm of the cosmos means “participation in the divine dimension” or what is sometimes called “the history of salvation.” Participation in this dynamism is a desire for a “better world,” but such a desire, the goal of which is “neither a dream of heaven on earth, nor [withdrawal] into one’s own self,” but a struggle for “a world in which there is less hatred and more love, less violence and more justice.” According to Panikkar, such a fight is urgently needed because the state of the world today is "tragic" and "serious enough to require radical measures." Ultimately, this struggle involves the search for the “meaning of life,” which meaning will never be found through selfish efforts or violent conquests, but only “through the achievement of that fullness of Life to which (Advaitist) contemplation leads.” Panikkar concludes by stating, “Fullness of life, happiness, creativity, freedom, well-being, achievement, etc. - all this should not be abandoned, but on the contrary, all this should be strengthened by a transformative transition” from history created by man to a threefold redemptive history [Panikkar 2010, 350-351, 359].
Concluding remarks
The passage just quoted highlights an important difference between Taylor and Panikkar. "Rhythm of Being" is an affirmation and glorification of "life" in its deeper Advaitic meaning. Panikkar uses as equivalent words “fullness [of life], happiness, creativity, freedom, well-being”; his other familiar word is “flourishing,” often used to translate Aristotle’s eu daimonia). Elsewhere Panikkar introduces the word “life” “at the level of Being, as human experience of the Whole”; this word here means “not only anima, animal life, but also physics, natura, prakriti", relating to “reality as a Whole.”
On this issue, The Secular Age takes a strikingly (and unfairly) dismissive position. As Taylor notes in his Introduction, in the era “modernity” “we have moved from a world in which the space of fullness [of existence] was understood as located undoubtedly outside or “beyond” human life, to an age of conflict in which such a concept is challenged by others who place this fullness [of existence] “within” human life." For Taylor (as already stated) the fundamental question posed by the modern secular age is “whether people [still] recognize something beyond, beyond, or transcendental to their lives,” that is, whether their highest goal lies in "serving a good that exists beyond - and independent of - human flourishing" or consists of "something other than human flourishing"? A true believer or pious person, on this understanding, is one who is willing to "make a deep inner break with the goals of (human) flourishing." Failure to do this is considered a sign of “self-sufficient humanism.” And the conclusion is this: “The secular age is a time when it becomes possible to forget all goals other than human flourishing.”[Panikkar 2010, 270-271; Taylor 2007, 15-17, 19].
Taylor's remarks here raise eyebrows—and concerns. Fear - because in our time many supposedly religious people are ready to sacrifice their lives in the hope of gaining quick access to the “beyond.” Perplexity - because these remarks call into question the very meaning of faith. For most believers, salvation (or " moksa") means precisely the highest level of prosperity and the highest accomplishment of life. What then should it mean for a believer to search for something? outside or “beyond” human life” or something “transcendent to their life”? Death is usually considered the antithesis of life. Is God (the monotheistic God) then a God of death or a God of the dead? This is impossible if we remember the words of the prophet Isaiah: “Your dead will live, your dead bodies will rise” (Isaiah 26:19). Even more eloquent are the words of Jesus: “Follow me, and let the dead bury their dead” (Matt. 8:22) and his instruction: “The Father raises the dead and gives them life” (John 5:21). Taylor himself obviously shows some hesitation here and resorts to evasive, ambiguous language. So, he writes: “There remains a fundamental tension in Christianity. Prosperity is a good thing, but the pursuit of prosperity is not our highest goal. But even in rejecting it, we reaffirm it.” And he adds: “The injunction “Thy will be done” is not equivalent to the injunction “Let people prosper,” although we know that God wants people to prosper.”
But I do not want to emphasize the differences between the two thinkers, but to highlight the commonality between them. Differing from each other in many respects, neither Taylor nor Panikar shows sympathy for theocratic ideas or any version of religious triumphalism. Both thinkers are repulsed by the megalomania and great-power games that characterize today's world—and they are both sensitive to new kinds of religiosity that find a place outside of public spectacle and noisy events. It seems to me that a characteristic feature of our time is not so much the “death of God” or the absence of faith, but rather the withdrawal and closure of the divine into invisible, inconspicuous phenomena of everyday life. Indian writer Arundhati Rai captured this trait in her novel The God of Small Things. Inspired by this Indian novel, I tried to express the feeling of a “little miracle” (as I called it) in one of my previous works. Here are a few lines from that text of mine: “For too long, I fear, the divine has been usurped and appropriated by the power elites for their own purposes.<...>For too long in human history, the divine has been crucified on the cross of worldly power. However, in recent times there have been signs that this long-term alliance may be ending and that religious faith is beginning to free itself from the chains of worldly manipulation. Leaving the palaces and mansions of those in power, faith - together with philosophical wisdom - finds refuge in discreet little things, in those corners of everyday life that cannot be usurped" [Dalmayr 2005, 4].
This change in religious feeling is vividly manifested in modern art, especially in modern and contemporary painting. As we know, in medieval art the presence of the divine or sacred was symbolized by a golden background or golden radiance surrounding sacred figures. Contemporary art cannot seriously imitate or follow such an image technique. But this does not mean that the sense of the sacred is completely lost or abandoned. It seems to me that this feeling manifests itself in less obvious ways, in more restrained ways: for example, in the miniatures of Paul Klee or in the still lifes of Paul Cézanne. We can say that modern secularism has a hidden meaning, which, in fact, is the opposite of the common “secularization thesis” (which proclaims the triumph of this-worldliness). The French philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty, a great admirer of Cézanne, expressed the hidden meaning of what I am talking about: “the invisible of the visible.”
In light of the above, the relationship between the two books discussed above - “The Secular Age” and “The Rhythm of Being” - takes on a new meaning. It can be assumed that the “secular age” outlined by Taylor is a kind of path that can lead matured and wiser humanity to an understanding of the “rhythm of Being.” If this is so (at least approximately), then perhaps it is time to remember the lines of Hölderlin: “Where there is danger, there appears saving grace.”
Literature
Arundhati 1997 — Arundhati R. The God of Small Things. NY, 1997.
Guardini 1956 — Guardini R. The End of the Modern World. NY, 1956.
Hölderlin 1966 — Holderlin F. Poems and Fragments. Trans. Michael Hamburger. Ann Arbor, 1966.
Guenon 1962 — Guenon R. The Crisis of the Modern World. T r ans. M. Pallis and R. Nicholson. London, 1962.
Dalmayr 2002 — Dallmayr F. Dialogue Among Civilizations: Some Exemplary Voices. NY, 2002.
Dalmayr 2005 —Dallmayr F. Small Wonder: Global Power and Its Discontents. Lanham, MD, 2005.
Dalmayr 2010 — Dallmayr F. Integral Pluralism: Beyond Culture Wars. Lexington, KY, 2010.
Maritain 1973 — Maritain J. Integral Humanism: Temporal and Spiritual Problems of a New Christendom. Trans. Joseph W. Evans. Notre Dame, IN, 1973
Merlot - Ponty 1964 — Merleau-Ponty M. Cezanne's Doubt / Sense and Non-Sense. Trans. Hubert L. and Patricia A. Dreyfus. Evanston, 1964. R. 9-25.
Merleau-Ponty 1968 — Merleau-Ponty M . The Visible and the Invisible, Followed by Working Notes. Ed. Claude Lefort, trans. Alphonso Lingis. Evanston, 1968.
Panikkar 1973 — Panikkar R. Worship and Secular Man. Maryknoll, NY, 1973.
Panikkar 2010 — Panikkar R . The Rhythm of Being: The Gifford Lectures. Maryknoll, NY, 2010.
Taylor 1989 — Taylor Ch. Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. Cambridge, MA, 1989.
Taylor 1992 — Taylor Ch. The Ethics of Authenticity. Cambridge, MA, 1992.
Taylor 1999 — Taylor WITHh. A Catholic Modernity?
Taylor 2007 — Taylor Ch. Charles Taylor's Marianist Award Lecture, with responses by William M. Shea, Rosemary Luling Haughton, George Marsden, and Jean Bethke Elshtain. Ed. James L. Heft, S.M. NY, 1999.
A Secular Age. Cambridge, MA, 2007. 1968 — Heidegger Heidegger M.
A Secular Age. Cambridge, MA, 2007. 1977 — Heidegger What is Called Thinking? Trans. Fred D. Wieck and J. Glen Gray. NY, 1968. Basic Writings. Ed.
David F. Krell. NY, 1977. 1939 — Spengler Spengler O.
The Decline of the West. NY, 1939. Strauss 1964 — Strauss L. The Crisis of Our Time / The Predicament of Modern Politics. Ed. Harold J. Spaeth. Detroit, 1964.
R. 41-54.
Notes[i] There is no generally accepted equivalent of the English word “modernity” in the Russian language (and this, among other things, indicates that Russia has not yet actually reached this “stage of historical development”). Therefore, here and below the word “modernity” is left without translation. —
Per. [Taylor 2007, 19] .<…>Here is another brief formulation: “Modern science, along with other phenomena described - buffer identity<...>, modern individualism, with its reliance on pragmatic reason and worldly activity - all this forms an immanent scheme
Science, modern individualism, pragmatic reason, secular time - all this seems to be evidence of the truth of immanence" [Taylor 2007, 566].
At one point in his book, Taylor himself laments that we have moved "from a time when religious life was more 'embodied,' when the presence of the sacred could be recreated in ritual, to a time when the sacred is found primarily 'in the mind.'" . And, as a consequence, “official Christianity underwent what can be called “excarnation” [“disembodiment”], that is, the transition from embodied - “in the flesh” - forms of religious life to such forms that are found “in the head”” [Taylor 2007, 554].
Taylor's emphasis on verticality seems to be influenced by the "transcendentalist" movement in French postmodernism, especially the late work of Jacques Derrida (who in turn was influenced by Emmanuel Levinas and his notion of the "radically Other"). Other, more “open” concepts of humanism can be found, for example, in the works of Jacques Maritain and in Martin Heidegger’s “Letter on Humanism”, see: [Marittain 1973; Heidegger 1977, 189-242].
Here Panikkar makes a very telling side note: “The most important way to go on in life is to live; but this life is neither an exclusively public sphere nor merely private property. Neither withdrawal from the world nor complete immersion in it is a responsible human position” [Panikkar 2010, 5].Panikkar adds that one must be “constantly on guard against the insidious danger associated with such efforts, namely, against the totalitarian temptation. I strive for holism, but not for globality; I am not proposing any system” [Panikkar 2010, 24].
A little further we read: “Existence is not a thing. There is nothing “outside” of Being. Therefore, the Rhythm of Existence can express the rhythm that Existence itself is” [Panikkar 2010, 51]. For Heidegger’s formulations, see “Letter on Humanism” [Heidegger 1977, 235-236] and “What is Thinking” [Heidegger 1968].
A little further we read: “Rhythm is a meta-transcendental property, that is, a property that belongs to every being (being) as Being. Rhythm does not add anything to Being, but only expresses the quality of Being as Being. If truth is considered transcendental because it expresses Being as intelligible, that is, in its connection with the intellect, rhythm belongs to Being not in its connection with the intellect or will, but in its connection with wholeness [or the Whole]” [Panikkar 2010, 52] . It also says that such a view is consistent with the “Advaitist vision of the Rhythm of Being.”
An interesting note adds: “I would hypothesize that Western, mainly Christian and then Muslim monotheism is a combination of biblical monotheism with Hellenistic consciousness, represented mainly by Plotinus<...>Neither Plato nor Aristotle were, strictly speaking, monotheists” [Panikkar 2010, 135]. For a critique of (imperial) political theology, see the chapter “The Secular and the Sacred: Whither Political Theology?” in the book [Dalmayr 2010, 45-66].
Panikkar dramatically asks, “Who or what will stop the murderous march of technocracy? More specifically: who will control weapons, industry, polluting nature, destructive consumerism, etc.? Who will put an end to the unchecked tyranny of money?” [Panikkar 2010, 358].
[Taylor 2007, 17-18]. In the same context, Taylor makes references to Buddhism - and these references are equally ambivalent and controversial.
In original : “Wo aber Gefahr ist, wächst das Rettende auch.” See: [Hölderlin 1966, 462-463 ]. Compare: [Merleau-Ponty 1964; Merleau-Ponty 1968].
Philosophy and Theology - BBI Gold Series
Taylor's book stands out among a large number of works on the essence and history of a complex set of processes occurring in the world of modernity (or postmodernity), which is commonly called secularization (or desecularization). The scope of the book seems immense - more than 500 years of the Reform in various European and North American communities, what is commonly called for short the West or Western civilization. At the same time, the author turns to a wide range of sources - from historical and philosophical works to numerous poets, who in their own way could very accurately reflect the processes occurring in society and the soul of a person, a member of this society.
Almost all the reviews that I had a chance to read dealt with one or another aspect of Taylor’s work, rare of them rose to the broad scope of the proposed approach, especially since the author avoids building a clear paradigm, insisting on the complexity, ambiguity, multi-layered and multi-vector nature of the processes taking place. And yet, the reader, inspired by the author’s Introduction, who has overcome the temptation to use the material of one of Taylor’s chapters or one of the colors of the picture of modernity he paints to confirm some of his own thoughts and has reached the Epilogue, will be rewarded with the possibility of a new perspective, a new vision, it would seem , well-known, familiar things. The publication of this work in other languages was invariably accompanied by intense scientific and public discussion, including both believers and non-believers, while the very background of debates about secularization and the role of faith and unbelief in modern society changed. The author does not hide his religious affiliation, but in no way engages in apologetics, giving the reader complete freedom for his own conclusions and, for this purpose, clearing wide space for fruitful independent intellectual work.
Charles Taylor writes in the preface to the Russian edition that he did not touch upon Russia in his book (although, of course, he actively used Russian sources). His book is dedicated to Western civilization. In a broad sense, this concept, of course, includes Russia, and many of the processes under consideration in the Western world are directly related to similar processes in the post-Soviet space. But many features of our development suggest other directions for discussion. Therefore, the publication of a significant book by a modern Western philosopher in Russian is especially important for correcting our thinking - both at the level of specialists and at the level of the general public. An indispensable condition here is intellectual and cultural openness and honesty towards oneself. Taylor notes: “It is through comparison that we learn most things, not only about each other, but about ourselves. And it was in the hope of prompting similar reflections, from the point of view of a different context, that I wrote my book from such a narrow perspective. I am very pleased that the conversation can now move beyond established boundaries and develop further. And I look forward to the reaction of my Russian colleagues to this book.”
One of Taylor's congenial interpreters was Robert Bellah (1927-2013), a famous American sociologist. Taylor often refers to his work and praised his final work, Religion in Human Evolution: From the Paleolithic to the Axial Age, published in 2011 and forthcoming in Russian from BBI. Taylor draws heavily on the work of René Girard and Hans Urs von Balthasar, and their books are also available in Russian. This certainly makes the reader’s work easier, and there is no doubt that reading such a book is serious intellectual work. To this end, where possible, we have provided Russian translations of Taylor's sources.
Preparing for the publication of this work in Russian required a lot of time and effort. Problems often arose with finding Russian equivalents of author's terms, and sometimes neologisms. Here is the “culture of the new star”, and “histories of subtraction”, and “fragilizatiori”, and the adjective “modern”. The fact is that Taylor distinguishes between modern and contemporary, which are usually translated by one Russian word - modern. However, for the author, the first adjective refers to the era of modernity in a broad sense, and the second to our modernity. Modern is found very often in the original, and it is difficult to always replace it with the phrases “pertaining to the modern era” and others. Therefore, after long discussions, we decided, for the sake of clarity and brevity of the text, to translate the first word as modern, even if this often sounds unusual to the Russian ear.
But however we view such a process - whether in terms of official regulations or in terms of ritual or ceremonial presence - this removal of religion from autonomous public spheres appears, of course, to be consistent with the fact that the large majority of people continue to believe in God and actively participate in religious rites. Here communist Poland immediately comes to mind, but this example is perhaps not entirely successful, because public secularism was imposed on the Poles by a dictatorial and unpopular regime. What is truly striking in this regard, however, is the United States: it is one of the first societies to separate religion from the state, and yet, among Western societies, it is the United States that has the highest statistical indicators for the prevalence of religious belief and related practice.
It is to these data that people often appeal when, characterizing our era as secular, they contrast it, with sadness or joy, with the ancient times of faith and piety. In this second meaning, secularization consists of the extinction of religious beliefs and related practices, and the fact that people turn away from God and no longer go to church. In this sense, the countries of Western Europe have become predominantly secular - even those where residual references to God still remain in the public space.
I believe that the analysis of our era as secular should be undertaken in one more, third, direction, closely related to the first of the above understandings and not completely alien to the second. The discussion here must first of all be about the very position of faith in society, about the conditions of its existence. In this sense, the movement towards secularity represents, among other things, a transition from a society where faith in God was something taken for granted and was not subject to the slightest doubt, to a society where faith is considered as one of the possible, along with other choices, and very often such a choice is not the easiest. In this third sense - as opposed to the second - the environment in which many groups exist in the United States is secularized, as, I would argue, is the United States as a whole. An obvious contrast to this is found in most Islamic societies today, as well as in the environment in which the vast majority of Indians live. And if someone were to show that church/synagogue attendance in the US or certain regions of the US approaches the level of Friday mosque attendance in Pakistan (or that attendance combined with participation in daily prayers), it would not change anything . Such data would indicate the similarity of these societies in terms of secularization only in its second sense. For it seems obvious to me that between these societies there is a significant difference in what the position of faith is in them - a difference partly due to the fact that in a Christian (or “post-Christian”) society faith has already become one of the ideological choices (and in some aspects - a hotly contested option), while in Muslim societies the situation is (yet?) different.
So, I want to explore our society as secular in this third understanding. In an extremely brief form, my plan could be expressed as follows: I intend to describe and trace the process of changes leading us from a society where it was practically impossible not to believe in God, to a society where faith, even for the most firm of believers, is only one of the possibilities open to human choice. I myself may not even imagine how I would renounce my faith, but there are other people, and among them very close to me, whose way of life I could not in all my conscience simply reject as immoral, reckless or unworthy - who, however, have no faith at all (at least, faith in God or in anything transcendental). Faith in God has ceased to be taken for granted - it has alternatives. And this perhaps also means that, at least in some types of social environments, a person may find it difficult to maintain his faith. Surely there are people who feel forced to renounce it, even if the loss of faith causes them sincere grief. Similar examples can be easily found in our Western societies, at least since the middle of the 19th century. On the other hand, it would never occur to many people to consider the possibility of faith seriously, as any real option. Today, without a doubt, this can rightfully be said about millions.
Construed in this sense, secularity concerns the entire context of understanding in which our moral, spiritual or religious quests are carried out and corresponding experiences take place. By “context of understanding” I mean here both that which almost each of us could, perhaps, formulate with complete clarity - for example, the multiplicity of choices, and those things that form an implicit, largely unconscious and unexpressed background this experience and search, its, to use Heidegger’s term, “pre-ontology.”
Consequently, an era or society is or is not secular due to the general conditions of spiritual experience and search. Of course, their place in this third dimension largely depends on the degree of secularity of a given era or society in the second of the senses described above, but, as the example of the United States shows, there is no direct correlation here. As for the first understanding of secularity, which relates to public space, it may not be connected at all with the other two (which could be demonstrated by the example of India). I intend to argue, however, that in the case of the West, the movement towards public secularity was one of the elements of the process that hastened the advent of the “secular era” in the third of the senses I have proposed.
As is known, until recently this was precisely the generally accepted view of what I call secularity in the first sense (secularity-1). We can, however, question some of its details, for example the idea of religion as “private”. See Jose Casanova, Public Religions in the Modern World (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994).
In his later work, Casanova showed even more clearly the complex nature of what I call here secularity-1. He distinguishes, on the one hand, secularity as the alleged privatization of religion (still trying to challenge it), and, on the other hand, secularization as “the separation, usually understood as “emancipation,” of special secular spheres (state, economy, science) from religious institutions and norms." It is in this that he sees “the semantic core of classical theories of secularization, associated with the original etymological and historical meaning of this term. It is a process by which the nature of the use, possession and control of persons, things, meanings, etc., changes from ecclesiastical or religious to civil or secular.” In his later books, Casanova attempts to disentangle the truth from mainstream theories of secularization.
From Lat. saeculum age, generation, world; secular or secular fluctuations in celestial mechanics, small fluctuations around the equilibrium position: ஐ So, in this sense, we can talk about a complex rise in the curve of civilizational progress, although... ... Lem's World - Dictionary and Guide
Shmeman, Alexander Dmitrievich- Alexander Dmitrievich Shmeman Occupation: Protopresbyter of the Orthodox Church in America, theologian Date of birth: September 13, 1921 (1921 09 13) ... Wikipedia
A. Schmeman
Shmeman, Alexander- Alexander Dmitrievich Shmeman Occupation: Protopresbyter of the Orthodox Church in America, theologian Date of birth: September 13, 1921 Place of birth: Revel Date of death ... Wikipedia
Shmeman Alexander Dmitrievich- Alexander Dmitrievich Shmeman Occupation: Protopresbyter of the Orthodox Church in America, theologian Date of birth: September 13, 1921 Place of birth: Revel Date of death ... Wikipedia
ZENKOVSKY Vasily Vasilievich- Vasily Vasilyevich (07/4/1881, Proskurov (now Khmelnitsky, Ukraine) 08/5/1962, Paris), protoprep., historian of philosophy and philosopher, author of numerous theological, psychological and pedagogical works. Grandfather Z. was a priest; father… … Orthodox Encyclopedia
SECULARIZATION- the process of liberating all spheres of public and personal life from the control of religion (from the Latin saeculum, the term of life, the characteristic of a transitory, temporary existence as opposed to the divine, eternal; starting with Augustine, “secular” is worldly... Philosophical Encyclopedia
The ideology of Roman society during the years of the establishment of the Principate. Roman literature- Ideology of the Principate Even during the civil wars, the idea, widespread in the East, of a divine savior who would make people happy and return peace and abundance to the earth, became very popular among the broad masses again. The poet Virgil (70 19... ... The World History. Encyclopedia
HUMANISM- [from lat. humanitas education, humanity], a multi-valued philosophical and cultural-historical term associated with the understanding of man, his special place in existence, embracing a number of heterogeneous phenomena of life: 1) in pedagogy, education and ... ... Orthodox Encyclopedia
SOLOVIEV Vladimir Sergeevich- (01/16/28/1853, Moscow 07/31/08/13/1900, Uzkoye village, now within Moscow) philosopher, poet, publicist, literary critic. Son of a historian and prof. Moscow University by S. M. Solovyov. After graduating from the gymnasium in 1869, S. entered the natural sciences... ... Russian philosophy: dictionary
SOLOVIEV Vladimir Sergeevich- (01/16/28/1853, Moscow 07/31/08/13/1900, Uzkoye village, now within Moscow) philosopher, poet, publicist, literary critic. Son of a historian and prof. Moscow University by S. M. Solovyov. After graduating from the gymnasium in 1869, S. entered the natural sciences... ... Russian Philosophy. Encyclopedia
Lecture
Professor at the University of Notre Dame (USA)
Fred Dallmeir
“Secular age? Reflections on the views of Charles Taylor and Raymond Pannikar"
(Fred Dallmayr, University of Notre Dame. “A Secular Age? Reflections on Taylor and Panikkar”)
The lecture was given in English with translation by Professor S.D. Silver.
Photo report
Fragment of Fred Dallmeir's speech
The great dilemma of the modern age, that’s even more important than secularism or secularity, is the tendency towards monologue. Science, technology speaks to the masses in a monological way. It poses itself as a power. Heidegger called it DAS GESTELL- “ the inframe ” . It's frequently translated as“i nframing ” , we are “ inframed ” by something. But the basic thing about technology or DAS GESTELL is that it is monological.Oneof the greatest struggles of our time of this century will be to affirm the dialogical element against monologue. That is chieflythe task of what we call the humanities, the human studies. And you can see the human studies, the humanities are in peril, are in danger. The humanities are in danger,then dialogue is in danger. In many places where management… when they have a certain amount of money, the first thing is to abolish the humanities. So one of the main tasks about our time is not only or not so much to reaffirm religion but is to reaffirm our humanity. And this is one of my criticisms of Taylor that he wants God, God, God. God does not need to be affirmed.We need to be reaffirmed.
The main dilemma of the modern era, even more important than secularism, is the predominance of monologue in today's world. Science and technology dictate monologues to the masses. They impose themselves on people monologically. Heidegger called this DAS GESTELL - what we have translated as POSTAV. POSTAV was translated into English as FRAME/WINDOW U RIVAL/FRAMEWORK technology, which offers humanity a certain framework for a second culture. The problem with the technological world, with this framework, is that it is only a monologue, there is no place for dialogue, there is no place for a feedback mechanism. And one of the greatest battles of this century and of all our time is to secure a worthy place for the dialogism of human existence. And this is the essence of humanities, humanities as a phenomenon. And in fact, the humanities are indeed under terrible threat. This danger comes from the fact that where a big purse appears, the humanities are immediately removed, and everything that dialogue can give is immediately abandoned. All management is not built on dialogue... Therefore, one of the main tasks of our time is not to give a place to religion or return it to its rightful place in society. No! Bring back humanity, bring back humanitarianism. This is why I criticize Taylor - he needs God and nothing else. In fact, God does not need to be protected, we need to protect US.
Charles Taylor, trans. from English, series “Philosophy and Theology”, ISBN 978-5-89647-307-7, volume xii + 955 pp.., hardcover
In this landmark book for our time, Charles Taylor raises the question of what exactly happens when a society in which it is almost impossible not to believe in God turns into one in which faith, even for the most committed believers, is only one of the human possibilities along with others. Taylor, one of the most insightful thinkers in the field, offers us a historical perspective. He explores the development of those aspects of modernity in "Western Christianity" that we call secular. What he describes is not one continuous transformation, but a series of new directions in which previous forms of religious life were dissolved or destabilized, and new ones were created in their place. What this means for the world, including the new forms of collective religious life that it encourages, with their tendency to mobilize masses to produce violence, is what Charles Taylor attempts to understand in a book that is as timely as it is timeless.
“This is one of the most important books anyone has written in my entire life. I've long admired Taylor. However, I think this book of his is a real breakthrough, it is a work of extreme importance because he managed to give a new form to the debate about secularism. Taylor focuses on “the conditions of experience and the search for the spiritual” that allow us to speak of our era as a “secular age.” It would be difficult to find a book in this field that is so little polemical, so generous in its insight into all possible points of view, including those furthest from Taylor's own, and so little concerned with demonstrating that one side in this multifaceted process of change is more virtuous. than any other."
“Charles Taylor has written about secularism before. But nothing suggested that he would give us something as wonderful as this book. His purpose in it was twofold: to provide a historical overview of the secularization of the Western cultural and social order and to define what it means to be secular and to live in a secular society. No summary can convey Taylor's extraordinary ability to add one detail to another in such a way that a startling, overarching picture emerges. …Taylor's book is the most powerful and highly original contribution to the secularization debate that has been ongoing over the last century. There is not a single book that is anything like this. She is the most essential of all."
“This is not only the summation of Charles Taylor's incredibly impressive life's work, but also the summation of everything that has been discussed and documented in various fields of study concerned with the emergence of secularism and the meaning of the individual self in relation to the community.” The story Taylor tells unfolds slowly, clearly and carefully, step by step, convincing the reader with a clear and concise account of the journey up to the present day. The result is a book that is enlightening in its own right, and one of the select few that is a must-read if you think about the social and intellectual dimensions of Western attitudes toward “the world.” Theologians should read it. Biologists, geneticists and their allies should also read it to understand the extreme complexity of the debate about the nature of religion and what they need to know before they tell the world their findings.”
Content
Preface to the Russian edition
Preface
Introduction
PREFACE TO THE RUSSIAN EDITION
PREFACE
INTRODUCTION
PART I: LABOR REFORM
1 Bastions of Faith
2 The emergence of a disciplinary society
3 Great Release
4 The modern social imaginary
5 The specter of idealism
PART II: TURNING POINT
6 Providential deism
7 Impersonal order
PART III: THE NOVA EFFECT
8 The ills of modernity
