In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

298 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY has been able to read. The result here is a presentation which is inspired and meaningful itself, astonishing its contemporaries and impressing its deseendants. Now, thirty years later, anthropology and psychology have passed beyond L~vy-Bruhl and Spranger. The moderate idealist interpretation of religion as it is found in Parts IV and V, "The World" and "Forms," must give way to descriptive phenomenology and existential analysis, taking into consideration the internal dialectics of religion as well as the dialectics between the religious and the secular. The domain of meaning (Sinnesreich) appears, upon closer consideration, to be a function of the domain of existence. Contemporary religious consciousness and the confrontation of different such consciousnesses would require a "Part Six." The necessarily brief methodology, attached as Epilegomeua to the substance of the book, only contains the remnants of phenomenological epistemology. Besides at least making the main work of Van der Leeuw more known to the Englishspeaking world, this edition may also stimulate phenomenological discussion where Geisteswissenscha /t has a different connotation than it does in continental Europe. In this discussion, several points will have to be made. Is this book a pure phenomenology, with its evaluative character, its tendency to psychological instead of philosophical foundation, and its lack of philosophy of human consciousness? It should be mid that, unfortunately, hardly any phenomenologist of religion has been philosophically trained. So questions like those of the relation between phenomenology and history, the nature of phenomenological objectivity, the premisses and limits of phenomenological understanding, not to say theological implications of any phenomenology of religion, remain open. Van der Leeuw himself, as a scholar and a man, touched on them, but they still have to be worked out. JACQUESWAARDENBURG University of California, Los Angeles Systematic Theology, III. By Paul Tillich. (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1963. Pp. 434. $6.95.) The publication of Tillich's Systematic Theology, Volume III, brings to completion the enterprise begun with Volume I in 1951 and Volume II in 1957. As the author tells us, the project of constructing a systematic theology began as far back as the 1920's at the University of Marburg. Suspended when Tillich fled Hitler's Germany in 1933, it was continued during his twenty years at Union Seminary and his years as a university professor at Harvard. Thus in a significant sense, Volume III completes the work of a lifetime. Yet in another equally important sense it marks the permanent incompleteness of this work. For while this is systematic theology in the sense that it acknowledges and works in terms of rationality or coherence, it is clearly not a system in any final, closed, or absolute sense. Not only does Tillich expressly deny any such aspiration, but his openness to facts and to other men's viewpoints, his mixture of humility and candor in the presence of large and difficult problems all make clear the validity of this denial. It is perhaps worth noting in the present context that at no point in Volume III or indeed throughout the whole Systematic Theology does Tillich appeal to any criterion of judgment other than reasoning from facts. At no point is the reader asked to accept any judgment "on faith" or on any extra-rational authority. To be sure, faith is a basic category for Tillich and a crucial one for the Systematic Theology. Indeed many pages are devoted to its exposition and explication, but never is it understood or used as a basis for accepting propositions beyond or against the evidence. Indeed that whole view of faith is abhorrent to Tillich, and a major theme of his work has been to seek an understanding of faith more adequate alike religiously and intellectually. Among contemporary theologians Tillich is preeminent for the seriousness of his commitment to philosophy. In an autobiographical sketch written many years ago, he placed himself on the border between philosophy and theology. As we read the present volume, the conclusion is borne home that he has continued to live on that border territory, maintaining BOOK REVIEWS 299 an active and significant relation to both adjoining realms. In a day of mutual isolation and often hostility between theology and philosophy...

pdf

Share