Philosophy of Religion: Taking Leave of the Abstract Domain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper considers what kind of approach can stem from Ludwig Wittgenstein’s thinking in the philosophy of religion. The essay underlines the problem of abstraction in this approach. It also tackles the possible advantages of reading literature in the light of religious experience.

The article convincingly embeds the anthropologically and culturally contextualized approach in the logic of argumentation. It elaborates on relevant research problems, and the provided references can noticeably contextualize the research objectives. While, in light of the reasoning, it is not disturbing that the included literary readings do not come with thorough references to literary scholars, the lack of mentioning Paul Ricoeur is unsubstantiated during the consideration of story-telling functions, especially in a theological context.

In a sense, the possibility of reading the story of Jesus’ resurrection told by John as a poem seems overemphasized in the light of the particularly non-literary (almost-broken) Greek in which the biblical text reads in its final form. Yet, the paper inspiringly provokes the question of the textual status of the fourth gospel in the frontier of philosophy, literature, and testimony, along with other genres and text types. Still, the application of the Wittgensteinian distinction between surface and depth grammar is not fully convincing in this context (as Wittgenstein argues against the notion of hidden depth in contrast to the surface-like operation of language games).

As for the problem of time and eternity, Rilke can also play an interesting role in the interference between Angelus Silesius, Wittgenstein, and Tolstoy.

Author Response

The paper considers what kind of approach can stem from Ludwig Wittgenstein’s thinking in the philosophy of religion. The essay underlines the problem of abstraction in this approach. It also tackles the possible advantages of reading literature in the light of religious experience.

The article convincingly embeds the anthropologically and culturally contextualized approach in the logic of argumentation. It elaborates on relevant research problems, and the provided references can noticeably contextualize the research objectives. While, in light of the reasoning, it is not disturbing that the included literary readings do not come with thorough references to literary scholars, the lack of mentioning Paul Ricoeur is unsubstantiated during the consideration of story-telling functions, especially in a theological context.

In a sense, the possibility of reading the story of Jesus’ resurrection told by John as a poem seems overemphasized in the light of the particularly non-literary (almost-broken) Greek in which the biblical text reads in its final form. Yet, the paper inspiringly provokes the question of the textual status of the fourth gospel in the frontier of philosophy, literature, and testimony, along with other genres and text types. Still, the application of the Wittgensteinian distinction between surface and depth grammar is not fully convincing in this context (as Wittgenstein argues against the notion of hidden depth in contrast to the surface-like operation of language games).

As for the problem of time and eternity, Rilke can also play an interesting role in the interference between Angelus Silesius, Wittgenstein, and Tolstoy.

Thank you for your helpful comments.

 

I have added a literary theory reference.

 

I have added Ricœur.

 

I have removed the surface/depth grammar issue and concentrated on meaning on the surface.

 

I have added some lines on Rilke.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am not familiar with the citation style adopted by the review, but I would prefer not to see contemporary authors quoted without specifying the date of their original work first, followed by the date of the translation. For example, in line 101: "Aquinas (1993...)" might mislead readers who are not familiar with the history of philosophy. Similarly, in line 104, "Kant" should be referenced by first specifying 1781 for his original work, followed by the translation date (e.g., 1964).

Line 136: "a.d." should be added after "200."

I do not feel qualified to judge the quality of the English language, so I did not select an option. However, it seems that I cannot submit the review without choosing one, so I am selecting the first option, but with the caveat mentioned above.

Author Response

I am not familiar with the citation style adopted by the review, but I would prefer not to see contemporary authors quoted without specifying the date of their original work first, followed by the date of the translation. For example, in line 101: "Aquinas (1993...)" might mislead readers who are not familiar with the history of philosophy. Similarly, in line 104, "Kant" should be referenced by first specifying 1781 for his original work, followed by the translation date (e.g., 1964).

Line 136: "a.d." should be added after "200."

I do not feel qualified to judge the quality of the English language, so I did not select an option. However, it seems that I cannot submit the review without choosing one, so I am selecting the first option, but with the caveat mentioned above.

Thank you for your helpful comments.

 

I have made it clear when Aquinas and Kant were writing and that Tertullian was active in the common era.