Oil month Automotive World Book Day Introducing Prime Wardrobe nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc $5 Albums PCB for select Bang & Olufsen Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Mother's Day gifts Home and Garden Book a house cleaner for 2 or more hours on Amazon westworldS2 westworldS2 westworldS2  Echo Fire tablets: Designed for entertainment Kindle Paperwhite AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Shop Now Start your Baby Registry

Customer Reviews

5.0 out of 5 stars
3

on January 27, 2012
The first reader review here of this book, along with a review on the 2009 Notre Dame Philosophy Review site, do a first-rate job of describing what I have found in this book. So for a summary of the content, use those resources. I can then feel free here to opine on what that content means for me.

I have read the book once completely, but it deserves repeated study and will be a reference book for me. By focusing on the topic of time and temporality, it integrates a comprehensive and balanced analysis of the continental philosophy and phenomenology I am interested in. We need both a convincing political philosophy and a relevant philosophy of religion that are coherent.

Instead we have critical theory's affirmation of Enlightenment values for political philosophy (Habermas) opposed to a genealogical critique of political institutions with serious doubts that our inherited values are worthwhile (Foucault). We have a choice between Habermas' reworking of the Enlightenment promises of rationality and progress and Foucault's adamant objections to that.

In addition, we have ontologies such as Heidegger's advocating for "enowning's" deference to the withdrawal of Being itself opposed by Derrida's postmodern (Hoy names it "poststructuralist") replacement of ontology by an original and elaborate literary theory of texts called deconstruction. Yes, all of that is put in perspective in Hoy's book.

It is the second, the discussion of ontology that interests me, because it has potential for philosophy of religion. Hoy commits to philosophical standards, but in the process he raises what are for me theological issues. They revolve around the significance of the dynamic of identity and difference. He surveys those issues as thoroughly as I have found in any one place. Insofar as Christian theology depends on an explication of Being to understand revelation, any critique of such an understanding of Being (as from Heidegger challenged by Derrida) raises primordial questions.

Beyond this book, we can find perspective in Michael Eldred's non-theological reading of Parmenides that suggests a relation of mind and temporality (Hoy's prevailing topic) as inspired by Heidegger (see Eldred's web site). Such a view challenges the Christian apologetics that interpret Heidegger as merely supplementing the ol' time religion. So far as I am aware, with few exceptions (Acts of Religion), defenders of religious orthodoxy are doing their utmost to persuade us that there's nothing new to see here (The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida: Religion without Religion (Indiana Series in the Philosophy of Religion).

I am convinced that, if Hoy's philosophical method of genealogy is pushed to its inevitable implications, the methodology can also illuminate theology. As my interest is in theology more than philosophy, I search for revelation rather than knowledge--not revelation once and for all but as an ever-available source. No, I have not found it--yet. Heidegger's work promises the possibility of such revelation in his theory of the evidence of the absence of a presence that must be somewhere even if it is not t/here, Da. It is an ontology of what has been forgotten since Heraclitus.

That is now stirring up one of the most fertile and productive outpourings of philosophy of religion in its history. Religion and theology have long been skittish about individual inspiration, with its association for heresy through the ages. So not a lot has yet been done by theology with what is available from the authors whom Hoy refers to. (Should you be aware of resources, please let me know.) Yet with the growth of religious studies programs at the graduate school level, the scholarship we need has begun to appear. Foundations are not easily shaken out of their stupor, but a few eyes have begun to open. Their philosophical teachings can be found in Hoy's book on time-consciousness. I look forward to his promised second volume on self-consciousness.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on May 4, 2013
This is the first book of this type that I've come across, one that takes all the great philosophers that dealt specifically with time and temporality and does a critical analysis in both a genealogical fashion as well as in a comparative manner. It helped having read some of the works of the philosophers that are analyzed (Heidegger, Bergson, Kant, etc.) but may not be necessary has each of their individual systems are explored before being critiqued.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on March 11, 2012
The first reader review here of this book, along with a review on the 2009 Notre Dame Philosophy Review site, do a first-rate job of describing what I have found in this book. So for a summary of the content, use those resources. I can then feel free here to opine on what that content means for me.

I have read the book once completely, but it deserves repeated study and will be a reference book for me. By focusing on the topic of time and temporality, it integrates a comprehensive and balanced analysis of the continental philosophy and phenomenology I am interested in. We need both a convincing political philosophy and a relevant philosophy of religion that are coherent.

Instead we have critical theory's affirmation of Enlightenment values for political philosophy (Habermas) opposed to a genealogical critique of political institutions with serious doubts that our inherited values are worthwhile (Foucault). We have a choice between Habermas' reworking of the Enlightenment promises of rationality and progress and Foucault's adamant objections to that.

In addition, we have ontologies such as Heidegger's advocating for "enowning's" deference to the withdrawal of Being itself opposed by Derrida's postmodern (Hoy names it "poststructuralist") replacement of ontology by an original and elaborate literary theory of texts called deconstruction. Yes, all of that is put in perspective in Hoy's book.

It is the second, the discussion of ontology that interests me, because it has potential for philosophy of religion. Hoy commits to philosophical standards, but in the process he raises what are for me theological issues. They revolve around the significance of the dynamic of identity and difference. He surveys those issues as thoroughly as I have found in any one place. Insofar as Christian theology depends on an explication of Being to understand revelation, any critique of such an understanding of Being (as from Heidegger challenged by Derrida) raises primordial questions.

Beyond this book, we can find perspective in Michael Eldred's non-theological reading of Parmenides that suggests a relation of mind and temporality (Hoy's prevailing topic) as inspired by Heidegger (see Eldred's web site). Such a view challenges the Christian apologetics that interpret Heidegger as merely supplementing the ol' time religion. So far as I am aware, with few exceptions (Acts of Religion), defenders of religious orthodoxy are doing their utmost to persuade us that there's nothing new to see here (The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida: Religion without Religion (Indiana Series in the Philosophy of Religion).

I am convinced that, if Hoy's philosophical method of genealogy is pushed to its inevitable implications, the methodology can also illuminate theology. As my interest is in theology more than philosophy, I search for revelation rather than knowledge--not revelation once and for all but as an ever-available source. No, I have not found it--yet. Heidegger's work promises the possibility of such revelation in his theory of the evidence of the absence of a presence that must be somewhere even if it is not t/here, Da. It is an ontology of what has been forgotten since Heraclitus.

That is now stirring up one of the most fertile and productive outpourings of philosophy of religion in its history. Religion and theology have long been skittish about individual inspiration, with its association for heresy through the ages. So not a lot has yet been done by theology with what is available from the authors whom Hoy refers to. (Should you be aware of resources, please let me know.) Yet with the growth of religious studies programs at the graduate school level, the scholarship we need has begun to appear. Foundations are not easily shaken out of their stupor, but a few eyes have begun to open. Their philosophical teachings can be found in Hoy's book on time-consciousness. I look forward to his promised second volume on self-consciousness.
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse



Need customer service? Click here