Anybody understand Tillich?
Offline Hey, I need your help understanding Paul Tillich on "faith and historical skepticism". Some of the things he says are just really confusing. When talking about what faith can guarantee he says it "can only guarantee its own foundation, namely, the appearance of that reality which has created the faith. This reality is the New Being, who conquers existential estrangement and thereby makes faith possible." Wha? I think he's trying to say that the fact that faith in Jesus exists is proof Jesus existed. (Circular)
He also goes on to say "No historical criticism can question the immediate awareness of those who find theselves transformed into the state of faith. One is reminded of the Augustinian-Cartesian refutation of radical skepticism." Augustinian-Cartesian refutation?
And " Without the concreteness of the New Being, its newness would be empty. Only if existence is conquered concretely and in it manifold aspects, is it actually conquered. The power which has created and preserved the community of the New Being is not an abstract statement about its appearance; it is the picture of him in whom it has appeared. No special trait of this picture can be verified with certainty. But it can be definitely asserted that through this picture the New Being has power to transform those who are transformed by it."
Lastly he continues about Jesus being this picture. " The concrete biblical material is not guaranteed by faith in respect to empirical factuality, but it is guaranteed as an adequate expression of the transforming power of the New Being in Jesus as the Christ. Only in this sense does faith guarantee the biblical picture of Jesus.....the picture has this creative power because the power of the New Being is expressed in and through it."
I've read this handout five times and I still don't understand half of what he's trying to say. I'd greatly appreciate any help.
- Login to post comments
I'm no philosophy buff, which I'm sure will become obvious rather quickly, but since no one seems to be rushing into this thread, I'll try and read him. Maybe if I try to read it, something I say will accidentally turn over a stone that helps you. Best I can do.
That sounds to me like he is saying that the only thing faith can prove is that there is some "reason" (scare quotes) the person has faith. The "reason" for faith seems to be what he calls the foundation.
The foundation is also this thing he calls the "New Being", which is what makes faith possible.
So if I'm reading it right, the only thing faith can guarantee (is real/true?) is the "New Being" (subjective experience?) which has made it possible.
Don't know anything about the refutation. Maybe by "radical skepticism" he's referring to an absolute commitment to skepticism, suggesting that faith is the opposite: an absolute commitment to belief. There's no point in criticizing a person who takes the radical position, so no criticism, historical or otherwise, can question faith. I'm sure Tillich is searching for a roundabout way to frame faith as a virtue that makes it sound less like anti-intellectual stubbornness.
Sounds like... the New Being is concrete, because it is a picture of the person who experiences this state of "New Being". But even though this picture is concrete, and therefore capable of "conquering existence" (WTF?), at the same time, no special trait of this picture can be verified with certainty.
So, to sum up: The New Being = A mirror looking into a mirror looking into a mirror, forever. Also, the images in these mirrors are ambiguously concrete. Or concretely ambiguous. It makes total sense either way you look at it.
I honestly have no fucking idea. It sounds like he's bullshitting to try and give some credibility to a subjective spiritual experience. This is why I gave up on reading Tillich. He takes old concepts and redefines them using convoluted terms with even more convoluted explanations for those terms. And in my opinion, there's no real point to him doing that other than to establish a smokescreen of masturbatory post-modern jargon so that you don't see the woo-woo slipping by.
Fire has the power to burn things that are burned by it.
Am I a theologian now?
Again, faith cannot guarantee empirical facts. It can only guarantee that you have had a subjective experience that has convinced you that you should have faith.
Similarly, my Ouijia board is terrible at predicting the future or accurately determining empericial facts. However, one thing this is certain: my Ouijia board guarantees that I had an experience that caused me to feel that I should own a Ouijia board.
Thanks, Ouijia board.
I want to help with this one, but he brought that nonsensical "picture" business back into it.
Hm. Looks like I just made fun of Tillich rather than actually helping you. I guess I should have learned my lesson from the last time I tried to read one of his soporific books.
Anyway, I'm sure it makes sense to somebody. I hope someone shows up who can actually give you the help you need. The most help I seem to be capable of here is....
*bump*
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
Well thanks for the try
I posted this up on Atheist Nexus too and somebody got on there and said Tillich was basically saying something like: "You know the sun exists because you experience it." And he then pointed out how this is bullshit because what about people will mental illnesses who think they're Napoleon? Or what about people on LSD who think they're a giant orange?
Sounds about right. I can't remember the title of the Tillich book I tried to read once before. I still have it somewhere in my book stacks. It's the one where he defines faith as "ultimate concern".
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
Sorry I didn't even see this thread for a while. Tillich was fond of obfuscating simple (and absurd) arguments. His philosophy was tied into existentialism. If you can imagine trying to make a self evident god consistent with existentialism, then... um... well, I have no idea what to say to that.
See THIS WEBSITE for more examples of Tillich-esque philosophy.
(Be sure to read the fine print at the bottom of the page.)
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism