The End of Time and the Possibility of World: Between Divinity and Nature

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I enjoyed reading this article.  It worked especially well as an exercise in integration, combining horizonality with eschatology, phenomenology and systematic theology.  The insights it expresses are subtle, nuanced, and thoughtfully presented.  There are no substantive matters upon which I would take issue.

My one negative comment is that I didn't learn very much from it.  This is perhaps because its research question could have been clarified and could have given greater structure to the paper.  While all the observations included hang together, it is not always clear what drives the discussion forward from one to another.

Given that the special issue theme is that of a natural relation between phenomenology and theology, it could perhaps have been made explicit that where phenomenology takes its orientation from horizonality and world, Christian theology takes its orientation from eschatology.  Some more explicit consideration might have been given to where these discourses intersect and differ.

Perhaps it is a matter of articulating why the issues discussed here are significant - a hesitancy to do this being a general weakness in phenomenology rather than specific to this paper as such.

I'm therefore recommending 'minor revisions' to at least give the author the opportunity to consider this feedback and response as they feel appropriate.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. 

I have re-written the introduction and have added text on page three, in both instances in an attempt to make the problematic clearer and to motivate the relation of phenomenology and theology with specific reference to eschatology.

Reviewer 2 Report

There is a tradition in contemporary phenomenology to write in a particularly evocative and quasi-poetic way. This style is particularly prominent in deconstruction, hermeneutics, and the French phenomenology of religion. This article follows in that tradition.

It’s worth saying here that I’m not sure if I’m the right person to review this article, because the tradition mentioned above is not my own. I am a Husserlian. Then again, I’m not sure if anyone is the right person to review this article. The reason is, most reviews (at least the ones I’ve done) involve looking closely at the claims made and weighing them. With the tradition above, taking what the authors say at face value seems to miss the point. I’m not 100% even sure how one would go about judging whether an article like this is worth publishing.  

So, let me say at least this: for this style to work, the author in question needs to possess the requisite level of creative skill. It is only this requisite level that gives the impression that one is dealing with a philosophical artist and not a charlatan pretending to be a mystic. It’s only this level of skill that demands the readers patience. This author has the appropriate level, and various points in the article demonstrates it. I guess the only bit of review I could offer is to say that it seems to be worth reading.

One other thing I can add is that this level of sophistication is not present in the introduction. Even before the article got going, I was just about ready to knock it on the head, because it struck me more as leaning towards the charlatan side of things. The body is different. I got the sense the introduction was written more hastily. The introduction should be severely rewritten prior to publication.

Even though what I have said above, perhaps a few signposts written in plain English would help us mere mortals to navigate the article. 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. I respect the divergence with respect to philosophical style. I would only add that Doktorvater, himself a (rather prominent) Husserlian would always tell me that "der Phenomenologe argumentiert nicht".

Having said that, on re-reading the introductory paragraphs, I recognize that they left a lot to be desired. As recommended, I have re-written them quite extensively, attempting to make the problematic which the paper is addressing clearer in so doing. On page 3, I have added a paragraph to signpost better how I am using the concept of 'horizon'.

Reviewer 3 Report

While the author's claim is quite interesting and original-trying to clarify conceptually the idea of eschaton by resorting to Husserl's notion of horizon-yet this claim is neither sufficiently stated at the beginning of the paper, nor sufficiently carried out. First, because the relation that the eschaton maintains with phenomenology (the author having in mind Husserl's phenomenology, not any kind of phenomenology) isn't enough substantiated by the author: why, in fact, resorting to Husserl's phenomenology when it comes to eschaton? What is it that Husserl's phenomenology offer, that would interest one inquirying into this theme? The author should start his/her paper with a problem that requires to refer to Husserl, rather than to build a supposed proximity between theology and phenomenology on the basis of the fact that both are grounded on the "conversion from the mundane toward an originary source"-a claim that the author associates, without further ado, to Husserl's idea of the annihilation of the world (while, in this context, he refers both to Husserl and Heidegger). Yet no precise reference or explication are given to substantiate such idea: is it arbitrarily set from the outset. The fact that this proximity is build only for the sake of the paper (and not because a real philosophical problem requires it) becomes particularly obvious when the author introduces the concept of horizon in the first part: the reference to Husserl and the horizon is not accounted for, and thus appears as arbitrary. The author should rewrite these passages, to show why such a reference is necessary. In other words, the relation between phenomenology (Husserl's phenomenology, in fact) and theology (and its concept of eschaton) should be more precisely (and less arbitrarily) grounded.  

Secondly, the author's (implicit) claim being that Husserl's concept of horizon should be able to participate in the clarification of the theological idea of eschaton, it is necessary that the author precisely defines and articulates the notion, by refering at least to precise passages from Husserl's work, and at best also to the work of commentators who devoted books analysing it (for instance, Geniusas' book). This seems all the more important since it turns out, as commentators showed, that this concept is closely connected to that of constitution in Husserl's philosophy. Yet the author does not use such concept, and seems to disconnect its use both from the Husserlian meaning, and from the problem around which constitution revolves (that of the foundation of sciences, namely the clarification of the core concepts of any discipline or science, be it practical, theoretical or axiological-a problem that, by the way, the author could use as a guiding line to ground his/her recourse to Husserl's phenomenology and concept of horizon when it comes to the theological notion of eschaton). If the author wishes to use this concept of horizon in a different way, then he/she has to say why, and how exactly he wishes to use it. 

If the author engages with these problems, I think there would be no reason not to publish the paper. 

Quality of English good, only a few have to be corrected, when the Author will re-read his/her paper

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.

With respect to the first point, I have now re-written much of the introductory paragraphs and added a half-paragraph on page 3 to show the reason for the confrontation of phenomenology with eschatology and the importance of the concept of horizon in this respect.

With respect to the second point, again on page 3 I have clarified my use of the Husserlian sense of horizon making reference to both Husserl and to a commentator (Geniusas as recommended).