Philosophies of nothing and the difference of theology
This abstract presents the central terms and presuppositions used in this dissertation. Doing so in the hope that this will make the reading of what is an intractably difficult project easier. The first of these is the presentation of an <i>aporia</i>, one which is presumed to be central to philosophy and theology, and which governs the various moves made in this dissertation. Grasping this <i>aporia </i>before reading the dissertation may help to contextualise what follows. ~What am I to do, what shall I do, what should I do, in my situation, how proceed? By <i>aporia </i>pure and simple~. (Samuel Beckett, <i>The Unnamable</i>). There is, I suggest, an <i>aporia</i> involved in finitude. Let me explain this <i>aporia. </i>How do we know that to <i>think </i> is significant? Or rather, how do we know that <i>thought thinks?</i> It seems we require a 'thought of thinking', a meta-level. However, if thought requires to be thought, then this thought about thought can either be another thought or something other than thought. The former would initiate an infinite regress, for the supplementary thought would require its own thought and so on. Whilst the latter would ground thought in that which is not thought,
Cunningham, C.
Philosophies of nothing and the difference of theology. This abstract presents the central terms and presuppositions used in this dissertation. Doing so in the hope that this will make the reading of what is an intractably difficult project easier. The first of these is the presentation of an <i>aporia</i>, one which is presumed to be central to philosophy and theology, and which governs the various moves made in this dissertation. Grasping this <i>aporia </i>before reading the dissertation may help to contextualise what follows. ~What am I to do, what shall I do, what should I do, in my situation, how proceed? By <i>aporia </i>pure and simple~. (Samuel Beckett, <i>The Unnamable</i>). There is, I suggest, an <i>aporia</i> involved in finitude. Let me explain this <i>aporia. </i>How do we know that to <i>think </i> is significant? Or rather, how do we know that <i>thought thinks?</i> It seems we require a 'thought of thinking', a meta-level. However, if thought requires to be thought, then this thought about thought can either be another thought or something other than thought. The former would initiate an infinite regress, for the supplementary thought would require its own thought and so on. Whilst the latter would ground thought in that which is not thought,
nothing difference theology abstract present central term presupposition use dissertation hope make reading difficult project easy first presentation aporia presumed central philosophy_theology govern various move make dissertation aporia reading may_help contextualise follow what shall situation proceed aporia pure simple suggest aporia involve finitude let explain aporia know think significant rather know think think seem require thought think meta level however think require think think thought either another thought something think former would initiate infinite supplementary thought would require thought whilst latter would grind thought think