GEORGES BATAILLE'S MYSTICAL CRUELTY
In this reply to Kent Brintnall's response to my essay on Georges Bataille and the ethics of ecstasy, I explore two primary questions: whether instrumentalization is inherently violent and non-instrumentalization is inherently non-violent, and whether there is a way to intervene in the world th...
Главный автор: | |
---|---|
Формат: | Электронный ресурс Статья |
Язык: | Английский |
Проверить наличие: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Опубликовано: |
Wiley-Blackwell
2012
|
В: |
Journal of religious ethics
Год: 2012, Том: 40, Выпуск: 3, Страницы: 551-555 |
Другие ключевые слова: | B
Mysticism
B Violence B Sarah Coakley B Georges Bataille |
Online-ссылка: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
Parallel Edition: | Не электронный вид
|
Итог: | In this reply to Kent Brintnall's response to my essay on Georges Bataille and the ethics of ecstasy, I explore two primary questions: whether instrumentalization is inherently violent and non-instrumentalization is inherently non-violent, and whether there is a way to intervene in the world that avoids both “apathetic disengagement” and domination. I endorse the view that instrumentalization can be good as well as bad, and I suggest that it is possible to strive to intervene in the world without striving to master it. I make reference to Sarah Coakley as a Christian theologian who advances particular practices that aim for non-dominating intervention in theworld. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1467-9795 |
Второстепенные работы: | Enthalten in: Journal of religious ethics
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9795.2012.00536.x |