The Good French Folk

By: Jonathan Seidel

French phenomenology and the theological turn  

Phenomenology began with the work of Husserl in the early twentieth century. A branch of existentialism, it drove deeper into the human psyche. The study of consciousness and experience as an objective science than its subjective belief. Focusing on judgement perceptions and emotional experiences. Husserl, Heidegger and Merleau Ponty are the pioneers and most critically acclaimed.  

Phenomenology has been criticised and evolving through the years. Yet, a firm foundation is consistent: Objective research is derided for epoche (voiding biases for inherent meaning to the system). Habitual human behaviour can provide a greater understanding of nature. People should be analysed because of their reflective uniqueness. Gathering conscious experience over data. Discovery oriented allows less stringent research methods. 

Philosophy’s “linguistic turn” had a descendent the “theological turn” coined by Janicaud. The French phenomenologists of Ricoeur Marion Derrida and Levinas were part of this trend. It can be argued that nuanced mentioning of religious themes in Husserl, Stein and Scheler began the trek but did not solidify a religious spin on the matter. Though it is relevant to point out the religious themes of wonder as an example are poignant for phenomenological study. Still, the theological spin on phenomenology does question its unbiased and pure foundational study. 

Was the theological turn a result of imprinting belief on phenomenology or phenomenology imparting belief? With the exception of Marion, the other scholars were religiously competent even adept but were not theologians in the traditional sense. Though it is possible that their blend operated either way. While there is a history of applying philosophical knowledge to tradition: Soloveitchik and Berkovits were religious scholars while Cohen was an academic who wrote about religion. These phenomenologists were similar but unlike Cohen, it was not necessarily a polemical work but a natural progression. Phenomenology itself may inspire religious sensations.            

The theological spin in Levinas, Henry and even Derrida is not explicitly religious. Ironically, Marion himself negated the theological turn, asserting that phenomenology naturally leads to theological association. Their work is highly religiously oriented but that is less the goal. Their philosophies coincide with religious messaging albeit experientially and principally not metaphysically. The anti-metaphysical element is novel in its advocation of cognitive perception without the supernal or literalism. The empirical sciences void the potential reflective existential progress.

It is possible that this study has shifted to religious scholarship but the original shift was less organised or intentioned to theological frameworks. It provides a new individualistic approach to the world. The theological interest was a response to Nietzsche, Heidegger, the world wars or the holocaust. The religious awning is reactionary in elevating the profound experience and value of reality. The suffering and narrow-mindedness of the past can be overcome with untraditional “theological” sensibilities. The horror is best vanquished with overwhelming religious themes. 

The phenomenological theology can be seen as a neo-theology. An unsystematic and metaphysical formulation. Theology though seen traditionally as dogmatic, positivistic and totalitarian framework, need not be. This christianised version is not beholden to the ancient beliefs. Phenomenological theology can rescue the old and elucidate a revolutionary theological model. Potentially, even a natural theology. Turning theology into a rational science is incorrect and Heidegger’s move is reminiscent of his onto-theological critique. Heidegger opposes theology but not faith. It is religious foundationalism that is problematic not religious experience.   

Neo-theology is experiential and valuational. It is not pondering God but encountering him. The sensation of transcendence removes the intellectual inquiry from its primal order. The religious events mark experiential markers for the believer to tap into. A narrative for deep existential escapade. Overcoming logical positivism and/or empiricism is via the human intentionality. Religious scholarship will play apologetics to apply the philosophy to their traditional models. Yet, gleaning from the French scholars is to take their voices and push it forward to place under the faith banner. 

Recent phenomenological mystical attempts whether Scholem, Idel or Wolfson are applying the philosophy to mysticism. It is an appropriation similar to the christian scholars. Soloveitchik’s halakhic man finds a balance describing the technique without naming it but his ideal archetype and is not a realistic believer. Yet the merit of an authentic Jewish phenomenology must emerge from its genus not a later addition. The latter confines religious thinking to relativist paradigms and contextualist consequentialism. Judaism has always been a religion of law yet a valued-legal lifestyle. If Judaism is interconnected in the experiential phase it undergirds a phenomenological approach.   

Historically, the law was instituted to grow closer to god. To engage god in an experiential effort. The law is critical for this stage but absent ethical conduct is empty activity. The spiritual meeting is properly expressed commands. The law framed an awareness of divinity to cling to. Temple sacrifices and then synagogue prayer are clear examples of intentioned results. To feel near not just on an individual level but subjectively communally. The rabbinic legal effort tied allegories as the realistic visualisation of the law. Law was not a codex but a lifestyle. To engage the legal atmosphere with existential angst. 

Despite Maimonides intellectualism, he was devoted to religious experience. The mind was the link to God. The prophetic experience was an individualised notation of intellectual absorption. Unlike his mystical counterparts, Maimonides saw experience through the mind not the heart. The rational faculty felt more engulfed in the divine plan the more he comprehended. Modern existentialism squarely focused on individual connection to the beyond. Though it was at times anthropocentric, the queries of existence and suffering were experientially manifest. 

The doxology and pilpul methods were gravely original. Newfound techniques for interpreting Judaism. Simultaneously altering the “pure” image of Judaism’s genus. The contemporary post-metaphysical layout is necessary for combating the scholastic and logical extremism. The mystics were not the sole holders of religious experience. They simply pounded more celestial jargon to the mix. Judaism is not meditative but it is also not philosophical. It is tribal and mythological. Heidegger is correct that it probably is an ontic science but for foundational not metaphysical nor dogmatic purposes. 

Religious experience is the hallmark of spiritual connection. It is also the core of phenomenological understanding. The natural phenomenological religiosity is in the subjective or even communal conscious of the people. It is the sensus comminus of religious expression. The unity and collaboration is for the intersubjective sensation. Mythology unifies the peoplehood in a higher collective conscious. A lifestyle to tap into the spiritual.