Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} After Kant’s strict separation of the fields of pure reason and practical reason and his demonstration that reason cannot know anything apart from phenomena including the existence of God there was a continuous desire to reestablish the unity of both. The most successful attempt in that direction so far was (...) Hegel’s phenomenology of the Spirit where he claimed he succeeded to establish the unity of the two as the Absolute. Yet, even this was problematic for it was the faith itself which supplied the basis of unity while the character of reason (pure insight) was particularity of the self-consciousness. In the late modernity where everything has imploded postmodern theory have successfully destroyed the metanarratives that hold the modernist ideals together. Under these conditions in which the assertion of any kind of subjectivity is impossible there is now a growing interest again in the theories trying to establish the basis of a post-secular society where finally faith and knowledge are hoped to be reconciled and supply a new meaning instead of the lost ones. Particularly the theories developed by Jacques Derrida and Jürgen Habermas try to legitimize the return of the spirit or the ‘religious’ under the aegis of a still secular state. However, such a desire remains problematical as in Hegel’s case for with its totalizing tendency the return of the spirit would tend to eradicate all difference as the basis of conflict and render the effective political action impossible. (shrink)

Since the last decades of the 20th century the meaning and content of knowledge has dramatically changed. This necessitates adopting a historical perspective in ap­proa­ching the questions of knowledge. But so far all the efforts of putting knowledge in a historical perspective since Hegel’s historization of Spirit either suffer from the limitations of the presupposition of the One or fail to ground the historicity of knowledge on the history of coming-to-be and passing-away. Moving from Heidegger’s ‘history of Being’ toward the (...) Aristotelian understanding of coming-to-be and passing away as a process of becoming has the potential to open up new avenues in approaching the historical question of knowledge as well as establishing its relation with the never com­plete ground of the entities as its historical a priori condition of possibility. (shrink)