Gordon: Secularization, Genealogy, and the Legitimacy of the Modern Age: Remarks on the Löwith-Blumenberg Debate

papers, religion

Talks about the divide between Lowith and Blumenberg debate

Lowith

• Modern philosophy holds itself independent
• Lowith argues that the mundane and non-religious form requires religion as the defining character, which means that secularity cannot exist without religion
• Lowith’s book runs backwards through time, starts with modern represenitives and walks back from Marx, Hegel, Comte to thinkers of the enlightenment, all the way back to the midieval theologicans.
• Attempts to show that Chrisitianity laid the framework for secularization
• Examines Burckhardt’s attempts to unshackle philosphy, ends up not totally successful, stating that Marx’s historical providence of capitalists were its last judgement
• Lowith extends the messanic faith of Marx into Hegel’s philosphy of history, noting that Hegel cannot resolve the profound ambiguity
• Interestingly, Lowith uses the Augustinianian distinction between temporality and eternity to serve as the fundalmental measurement
• Distinguishes between the concept of the consonant and dissonant geneaology
  • Consonant geneaology tells us more about a concept
  • Dissonent geneaology exposes contradictions in the background assumptions
• Lowith uses a dissonant geneaology to expose dissonance in the self-conception of modernity

Blumenberg

• Fought against the idea that modern progress was somehow illegitimate Noted that the logic of modernity contained own, internal ideas of progress that could be kept intact
• Notes the Kantian idea of “self-authorization”