The meeting, hosted by McGill University, was held in Montréal, from Friday, October 12, to Sunday, October 14, 1990. Approximately 125 members and friends of the Society attended. The topic of discussion was “Hegel’s Philosophy of Religion.”.

Central to Kierkegaard’s account of religious existence is his critique of speculative reason. This critique begins with the distinction between subjective and objective reflection. Its most radical aspects appear in Kierkegaard’s discussions of the paradox. In spite of Kierkegaard’s frequent comments on this notion, it is not readily understood. I want to argue against a common reading of this notion and propose an alternative reading. This alternative reading allows for a conceptually quite plausible account of the manner in which the (...) paradox presents reason with a boundary, in virtue of its relation to objective reflection and to subjective reflection as well. Because of this boundary, reason points beyond its own achievements to a domain of contemplation and appropriation. This is a domain that reason itself identifies in connection with the paradox. It both surpasses rational achievements and integrates them into itself. (shrink)

Central to Kierkegaard’s account of religious existence is his critique of speculative reason. This critique begins with the distinction between subjective and objective reflection. Its most radical aspects appear in Kierkegaard’s discussions of the paradox. In spite of Kierkegaard’s frequent comments on this notion, it is not readily understood. I want to argue against a common reading of this notion and propose an alternative reading. This alternative reading allows for a conceptually quite plausible account of the manner in which the (...) paradox presents reason with a boundary, in virtue of its relation to objective reflection and to subjective reflection as well. Because of this boundary, reason points beyond its own achievements to a domain of contemplation and appropriation. This is a domain that reason itself identifies in connection with the paradox. It both surpasses rational achievements and integrates them into itself. (shrink)

This is a rich, impressive, and important work in philosophical anthropology. It is rich and impressive in view of the wide range of literature upon which the author draws, and the interdisciplinary competencies which he exhibits. It is important because of the central issue which the work focuses on and analyzes from its interdisciplinary perspective.

This is a rich, impressive, and important work in philosophical anthropology. It is rich and impressive in view of the wide range of literature upon which the author draws, and the interdisciplinary competencies which he exhibits. It is important because of the central issue which the work focuses on and analyzes from its interdisciplinary perspective.