Suchergebnisse

This review looks at how Shahab Ahmed engages with history, political elitism, secularism, and anthropology in his book What Is Islam? The Importance of Being Islamic.

In this paper I would like to discuss three rival versions of theological genealogy that are popular today. In doing so I seek to offer a few examples of how the most recent scholarly turn to theology is ultimately being driven by disparate political ideologies. The first one I describe as new Catholic modernity critiques, which often emphasize the breakdown of moral consensus brought on by Protestantism, theological nominalism, etc. The second are proponents of what I describe as a Left Hegelian project of detheologization—scholars on the political Left who in recognizing the theological origins of modernity seek to overcome theology in order to advance a progress project (Roberto Unger and Samuel Moyn). Finally, I will discuss the so-called post-secularists (Jürgen Habermas, Hans Joas, Charles Taylor) who see modernity neither as morally incoherent, nor theology as a bad thing; rather, these scholars argue that secularism and "the Judeo-Christian tradition" developed together and therefore can mutually enrich each other. ; El presente artículo analiza tres versiones rivales de genealogía teológica que gozan de popularidad hoy en día. Nuestro estudio trata de ofrecer algunos ejemplos de cómo el último giro teológico se ve propulsado en último término por ideologías políticas muy diversas. La primera, a la que nos referimos como "nuevas críticas católicas de la modernidad", suele poner énfasis en la ruptura del consenso moral que se produjo a raíz de la aparición del protestantismo, el nominalismo teológico, etc. La segunda está constituida por los partidarios de aquello que podríamos llamar "proyecto de desteologización hegeliano de izquierdas", es decir, por pensadores de la izquierda política que, al tiempo que reconocen los orígenes teológicos de la modernidad, tratan de superar la teología para proponer un proyecto de progreso (Roberto Unger y Samuel Moyn). Por último, analizaremos a los llamados "postsecularistas" (Jürgen Habermas, Hans Joas, Charles Taylor), para quienes la modernidad no es ni moralmente incoherente y la teología no es algo negativo, sino que más bien sostienen que el secularismo y la "tradición judeocristiana" se desarrollaron juntos y pueden por tanto enriquecerse mutuamente.

In hisMémoires, published in the year of his death in 1983, Raymond Aron—the French sociologist and Cold War champion of liberalism—astonishingly remarked that as a man of high culture Carl Schmitt could have never been a Nazi. Aron's defenders have typically downplayed his mature views on Schmitt: for how else could the main defender of the liberal faith in France devote himself to salvaging the reputation of the greatest antiliberal of the age? This essay argues, however, that Aron's bizarre statements about Schmitt actually provide a crucial aperture into the nature of Aron's liberalism. I will begin by placing Aron's comments about Schmitt within his Clausewitz project of the 1970s. Aron took Schmitt as a guiding inspiration even as he sought to overcome Schmitt's existential interpretation of Clausewitz. By doing so, Aron hoped to establish a rational foundation for political action. Yet Aron's attempt to contain Clausewitz would not only lead to a renewal of interest in Schmitt's thought; it would also revive Aron and Schmitt's correspondence that had lain dormant since the early 1960s. As the 1970s advanced, this would have implications for how Aron viewed Schmitt, especially in light of the critical German reception ofPenser la guerre, Clausewitz. This essay concludes by looking at the intellectual legacy of Aron's Schmittian inspirations—at just the time he became the avatar of contemporary French liberalism