Phenomenology Out of Bounds? Jean-Yves Lacoste’s Phenomenology and the Presence of God

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.    The paper is too long and should be cut. The first half in particular covers fairly well-trodden ground, and it could be cut down.
2.    In the introduction suggest that the paper is split into two parts, each of which can be read independently. (1) Husserl on phenomenology of God, (2) Lacoste on phenomenology of God. Readers who know Husserl can skip directly to the second part.
3.    The introduction needs work. Give a summary of the paper in the introduction, so the reader knows what to expect and can follow the more detailed argument to come.
4.    You argue compellingly in defense of that which appears poorly. If God can appear it must be in this way. But the paper is strangely lacking in any examples. Can you provide some?


234. 'needs' should be need
273. 'with' seems like a strange preposition here. maybe 'by'
333. 'want, this' should be 'want; this' Run on sentence. Two independent clauses should only be combined with semi-colon or comma and coordinating conjunction, unless there is some great stylistic reason for the informality.
334. In more than 'one' way
336. 'impressed me a bit more on me' is not right
353. Run on. 'appearances, and'
369. run-on. 'Husserl, but'
444. female possessive pronoun is 'her' not 'hers'
612. 'if neither is' is wrong here.
776. 'tide roping' should be 'tight-roping'
795. 'present' should be 'presents'
795-6. 'when loved even:' is unclear
814. 'build' should be 'built'
838. 'hers' should be 'her'
857. 'to see' should be 'seeing'
858. 'admitted' should be 'admittedly'
858. Perhaps the sentence should read ‘Lacoste has shown that a phenomenology (admittedly a somewhat unorthodox phenomenology) can at least welcome some (more or less)…’
866. ‘balance’ should be ‘balances’

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Thank you very much. I have rearranged the introduction (another reviewer required this as well) and indicated that the portion on Husserl can be read separately. I did insert some indication as to its relevance on understanding Lacoste (minimizing the role of transcendental thinking in order to give more room to empirical experiences). Examples of these kind of experiences are hard to find (and sometimes even somewhat inappropriate). The phenomena of what "appear poorly", though, are best described in Lacoste's Thèses sur la vérité, about which I have written before - it would be awkward to repeat those examples here. Lacoste, however, is close to mystical experience in many respects. It is for this reason I suggested his reference to spiritual literature. There are example of the recluse and the pilgrim in Experience and the Absolute, but that was at a time Lacoste refused to think about God's presence to experience. I think it is best, in this particular case, to leave to the imagination what comprehension cannot grasp. 

Thank you, too, for the suggested corrections. I have incorporated them all. 

Thank you. 

Reviewer 2 Report

This an excellent essay by an author well-versed in various traditions of phenomenology. While s/he focuses on Jean-Yves Lacoste’s thought (especially his relationship to Husserl), s/he mentions a number of phenomenologists, such as Heidegger, Marion, Derrida, or the critic of the “theological turn of French phenomenology”, Janicaud. Lacoste is certainly a remarkable figure as compared with those influential thinkers even if his presence on the internet is surprisingly limited. This fact might be connected to personal circumstances (but it is still interesting, for instance, that no longer interview with Lacoste is available on the net).

With respect to the essay, I offer three critical vistas:

1.     The structure of the article is a little complicated as it does not come to the fore how much Lacoste is indeed a theologian. One should not forget Lacoste as the editor of the three-volume The Encyclopedia of Christian Theology, just to mention one significant work among many others. In other words, the theological impact of Lacoste’s thinking is less emphasized than one would expect. A stronger emphasis on the theological dimension would have helped the detailed description of the relationship between Husserl and Lacoste be somewhat simplified. I do not mean oversimplification as Lacoste is never simple; I mean a clearer structure and a stronger emphasis on the theological domain (including the Conclusion).

2.     If Husserl and the theological dimension, then why not mention Angela Ales Bello? Her works on Husserl and the divine are crucially important. I note here too that Lacoste’s interpretation of Husserl is often presented unproblematically, while of course it is not problemfrei at all. The elementary interpretations of intentionality and intuition by Lacoste (apparently accepted by the author of this essay) is certainly very far from the complexity of Husserl’s transcendental idealism (emphasis must be added: Husserl IS an organically thinking transcendental idealist).

3.     There are some further authors that offer important points concerning theology and phenomenology and while some of them are mentioned (Marion, Lévinas), some others are not. Lacoste’s approach to Husserl and phenomenology is paralleled by the work of Paul Ricœur (not mentioned in the essay). Paul Tillich based his systematic theology on a certain interpretation of phenomenology, in fact not very far from Lacoste’s views. While the author appears to be a native English writer s/he does not mention related English literature. I mention here just one useful overview: Kenneth Jason Wardley’s Praying to a French God. The theology of Jean-Yves Lacoste.

4.     Bibliography must be added; it is not sufficient to list the references, because the author uses in-text brackets with bibliographical items, such as (Housset 2010) etc.

Author Response

The structure of the article is a little complicated as it does not come to the fore how much Lacoste is indeed a theologian. One should not forget Lacoste as the editor of the three-volume The Encyclopedia of Christian Theology, just to mention one significant work among many others. In other words, the theological impact of Lacoste’s thinking is less emphasized than one would expect. A stronger emphasis on the theological dimension would have helped the detailed description of the relationship between Husserl and Lacoste be somewhat simplified. I do not mean oversimplification as Lacoste is never simple; I mean a clearer structure and a stronger emphasis on the theological domain (including the Conclusion).

Reply: 

(From my response to the editors) The encyclopedia is a certainly an important (even monumental) work, but it is also an encyclopedia: a work of multiple authors informing us about the history of theology. It is true that Lacoste has written multiple entries, but in these too he does not speak in his own name but extends knowledge - in an objective fashion - to the readers. In short: this is not the place where his theology is found. On the other hand, I do discuss his theology and his theological works - there is a long section on the sacramental experience (his recent term for the phenomenology of liturgy) at the end of my essay. Almost all of Lacoste's phenomenological/philosophical books result in discussing this sacramental expereince (etre en danger, thèses sur la vérité), so it is not that I avoided these. On the contrary! The reader might be right if he or she is suggesting that I neglect somewhat Note sur le temps and Expérience et absolu. However, these are discussions with Heidegger more than with the strict phenomenology of Husserl (which is the basic entry of this essay, and on which not much work has been done). A second reason for this 'neglect' is that I have devoted an entire book on these two works, so I would be obliged to repeat myself on this issue - I don't think that this would be helpful for the issue.

+ Perhaps it is not clear for the reviewer in effect how much of a theologian Lacoste is. Lacoste - a priest -  comes from a conservative strand in Catholic France (Communio!) and started developing a radical phenomenology quite early on. These are, however, basic facts that I could really mention in this essay.  But, then again: the reviewer might be right and I 'omit' an overt theological dimension. Straightforward sacramental theology can be found in any of Lacoste's recent writings, however. What interests me more, in this article but perhaps also for this issue, is to show that Lacoste seeks to find a bridge between his 'strict' phenomenology (the phenomenon always greater than what appears) and his theology (God always greater than that which can be thought). It is this bridge that brings him closer to Tillich than, say, Barth and which is very little noticed in the literature. 

2. If Husserl and the theological dimension, then why not mention Angela Ales Bello? Her works on Husserl and the divine are crucially important. I note here too that Lacoste’s interpretation of Husserl is often presented unproblematically, while of course it is not problemfrei at all. The elementary interpretations of intentionality and intuition by Lacoste (apparently accepted by the author of this essay) is certainly very far from the complexity of Husserl’s transcendental idealism (emphasis must be added: Husserl IS an organically thinking transcendental idealist)

Reply. 

I completely agree. (I don't know Bello's work however). Much can be said about Lacoste's Husserl's interpretation (there are interesting essays in the forthcoming book God and Phenomenology. The Thought of JY Lacoste which I am editing). This would however be a different essay - and I am many things, but not a Husserl scholar. The take on Husserl in the beginning merely intends to show that however much we look at tables (or at anything in the world), one cannot see God. In the beginning, phenomenology could not be reconciled with any theology whatsoever. 

2. There are some further authors that offer important points concerning theology and phenomenology and while some of them are mentioned (Marion, Lévinas), some others are not. Lacoste’s approach to Husserl and phenomenology is paralleled by the work of Paul Ricœur (not mentioned in the essay). Paul Tillich based his systematic theology on a certain interpretation of phenomenology, in fact not very far from Lacoste’s views. While the author appears to be a native English writer s/he does not mention related English literature. I mention here just one useful overview: Kenneth Jason Wardley’s Praying to a French God. The theology of Jean-Yves Lacoste

Reply

Yes, true. I do know the literature though. Jason was a good friend. But like I said, not much has appeared on Lacoste and Husserl. Sometimes even the works of friends can't help you. The reader is right on Ricoeur's influence (explictly mentioned in the interview I cite and in Lacoste's book on Narnia). But I wanted to discuss Lacoste within strict phenomenological limits, and Ricoeur is more a hermeneut than a phenomenologist. 

2. Bibliography must be added; it is not sufficient to list the references, because the author uses in-text brackets with bibliographical items, such as (Housset 2010) etc. 

Reply. 

I think the reference list is required. For a bibliography of existing literature on Lacoste, see perhaps my special issue in Modern Theology of 2015. 

Reviewer 3 Report

It is encouraging to see Jean-Yves Lacoste's thought becoming more widely known in the world. The well-written paper presented for review, which presents an in-depth and wide-ranging analysis, well grounded in appropriately and critically selected sources, of Husserlian inspirations and influences in Lacoste's phenomenology, will certainly further contribute to that. In the following review, I offer a few criticisms and hints, which are only meant to be helpful to the author and do not in any way affect the high assessment of the paper presented.

The abstract is well-written and correctly presents the problem, justifies addressing the issue and gives an outline of potential solutions. Unfortunately, however, the first paragraph (and especially the first section of this paragraph) is rather vague and it is difficult to comprehend what the problem of boundaries in phenomenology is all about. What is lacking here is an elaboration of the aforementioned (and well-written) abstract. The status quaestionis should be sketched in detail. It is necessary to show the problem of the limits of the phenomenological method and the peculiar struggle with the boundaries of phenomenology ongoing in contemporary French religious thought. Phenomenology in France, moreover, has a long tradition, which the article seems to ignore (except for the mention of Derrida). It is difficult to talk about the reception of Husserl's phenomenology by the Seine River without mentioning either Lévinas' early articles on the subject or his famous work 'La théorie de l'intuition dans la phénoménologie de Husserl' and the lectures given by Husserl at the Sorbonne. It is difficult to situate Lacoste's ideas in the admittedly rich landscape of French religious phenomenology without thoroughly considering references to this tradition. The article unfortunately focuses too much on citing Lacoste's analyses of Husserl's phenomenology, at the expense of a certain ignorance of the French phenomenological tradition. Hence, the analyses in the text lack distance and appropriate criticism. It is somewhat worrying, moreover, that the paper focuses heavily on Lacoste and shows little of other contexts. What is missing here is a reference to the conception of the philosophy of religious experience proposed by Henri Duméry, a reference to the work of other contemporary phenomenologists (e.g. Emmanuel Falque, Philippe Capelle) a mention of Lacoste's own struggles with the limits of phenomenology in his early work (the publishing series Theologiques, the book Note sur le temps). Also missing is a reference to what is probably fundamental to Lacoste's philosophical project, a biographical note he made for the PUF, which states:: " Au lieu donc de postuler l'existence d'une limite (telle que x serait d'un côté et y de l'autre), j'ai défendu et défends l'existence d'une zone frontalière où nul ne sait exactement si x appartient à la philosophie ou à la théologie, et où le plus souvent x appartient à l'une et à l'autre. Pour ce faire, les instruments de travail ont été ceux de la phénoménologie, tant husserlienne que heideggerienne ". There is also no reference to the introduction to his most important book Expérience et absolu. Questions disputées sur l'humanité de l'homme, where he lays the foundations of his conception of phenomenology: " Il s'agit de rendre compte phénoménologiquement de ce qui n'est pas donné dès le commencement, de ce qu'on ne peut déduire des règlements transcendantaux de l'existence ". This article would therefore benefit greatly if the solutions Lacoste proposes in phenomenology, as described in it, were placed in the context of the main problems of French religious thought, of which the problem of boundaries between different ways of thinking certainly remains central. In describing this 'boundary area', Lacoste often refers to concepts such as intertwining (l'entrelacs) and excess (l'excès). Jean Greisch, in the introduction to his book Le Buisson ardent et les Lumières de la raison, identifies three pillars on which this edifice of the philosophy of religion in France rises. The first is the question of onto-theology, the second is secularisation, and the third concerns the problem of spiritual experience and its relation to philosophy. It turns out that the theological 'task of thinking' posed by Lacoste brings us into a boundary area where philosophical theology, philosophy of religion and philosophy of religion meet and at the same time intertwine. The main methodological paradigms in contemporary French religious thought, such as the theological turn in phenomenology, the phenomenological turn in theology, the aesthetic turn in phenomenology, the Christological turn in phenomenology, the hermeneutic turn in phenomenology, the hermeneutic turn in theology and even atheistic spirituality, also emerge from these struggles with boundaries. The paper, however, hardly mentions them. The paper also makes little mention of the phenomenology of liturgy itself (the term itself does not appear at all), a fundamental concept for Lacoste.

It seems that the text is written a little too much in Lacoste's language. Written in the first person, the phenomenological analyses of experience resemble those of Lacoste himself. Unfortunately, however, while it is not easy to distance oneself from Lacoste's highly evocative semi-poetic argument, such distance is necessary. It allows Lacoste's thought to be set in its correct contexts, to be critically evaluated and to bring out the difficulties involved. Such an approach is essential for any proficient researcher. It seems possible to omit some of the analyses (especially those in paragraph 2) and instead show the missing contexts mentioned above. 

However, all the listed weaknesses of the text are for the most part excusable and do not impinge on its overwhelmingly positive assessment. The author shows a clear fascination with Lacoste's thought, which the reader is effectively inspired by. The author very well reproduces Lacoste's thought and reinterprets it with great success. Hardly surprising, Lacoste's thought has a great deal of beauty in it, leading us not only from theology to theological thinking, but also (and perhaps much more so) from theology to theological poetry. The article also seems to successfully lead the reader along this path. It should be stressed that the text is excellently written and therefore a delightful read. It is also worth noting that the author uses good English. Finally, I would like to congratulate the author, who has successfully tackled an intractable problem and presented a hugely revealing, inspiring and interesting text. It should be emphasised that the article presented for review is of very high scholarly quality and certainly constitutes a valuable contribution to the development of research on Lacoste's thought and on French phenomenology more broadly. May my modest hints and suggestions given in this review serve only as a little guidance to the author in improving an already very good paper.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Thank you very much for this review, in which there is much to marvel about - I imagine we would have fruitful discussions. 

Yes. The essay could benefit from a sort of 'who's who' in contemporary French thought. That, however, seems beyond the strict, say, 'boundaries' of this essay, which only ever wants to describe Lacoste's phenomenology, and Lacoste's take on Husserlian phenomenology. It is true, however, that one is easily put under the spell of Lacoste's writing and, alas, it seems that I felt prey to it a few time too many. I do defend my close reading of his work, though: Lacoste is too little known to describe his work with very, very broad strokes, so I hope my close readings help in drawing readers to Lacoste's work somewhat. 

I will nonetheless attempt to give some more context to my readers in the introduction and try to reduce the few paragraphs you mention somewhat. 

I have explained to the editors my reticence in using Note sur le temps or Expérience et absolu already. There featured in earlier work of mine and I would risk repeating myself. However, I think the conclusion of my essay - where it is indicated that the empirical posture of prayer pierces through the transcendental make-up of being human connects very well with the quotation the reviewer mentions. It is not to be underestimated how much Lacoste strays from transcendental philosophy these days - sometimes I worry that he might not be aware of this. The quote further mentions the difference between the beginning and the originary (commencement and l'initial, if I recall correctly). Yet this, again, is part of Lacoste's discussion with Heidegger, whereas this essay explicitly wants to focus on his debate with Husserl. 

But I defintely need to look into Duméry soon - thank you.