Comparing Three Twentieth-Century Philosophical Antitheodicies
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 20249394 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Sami Pihlström (0000-0002-6410-8382, University of Helsinki, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2017 |
| Volume | 6 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 98 |
| Publication date | 2017-12-12 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Humanities (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2076-0787 • E-ISSN: 2076-0787 |
| Publisher | MDPI AG (PUBLISHER • IT) |
| DOI | 10.3390/h6040098 |
| OpenAlex | W2774049353 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 9 |
This paper compares three twentieth-century examples of antitheodicist thought in the philosophy of religion (and, more generally, ethics): William James’s pragmatism, D.Z. Phillips’s Wittgensteinianism, and Emmanuel Levinas’s post-Holocaust ethical reflection on suffering. It is argued that all three—despite their enormous differences, given that the three thinkers discussed come from distinct philosophical traditions—share the fundamental antitheodicist argument according to which theodicies seeking to justify God’s reasons for allowing the world to contain horrible evil and suffering amount to morally problematic, or even immoral, failures to acknowledge other human beings and their meaningless suffering. Furthermore, it is suggested that this antitheodicist line of thought shared by all three is based on a Kantian transcendental analysis of the necessary conditions for the possibility of occupying a moral perspective on the world
Epistemology · Pragmatism · The Holocaust · Theology · Transcendental number · Philosophy · Philosophy, Ethics, and Existentialism · Theology and Philosophy of Evil · War, Ethics, and Justification
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |