Abstract
This response to Roger Ames’s critique of William Franke’s apophatic philosophy turns on an equivocation in the use of the term “transcendence.” Ames’s arguments are directed precisely against what he defines as strict transcendence, in which two terms are related contrastively and asymmetrically so that one dominates over the other and the second depends on the first. An apophatic point of view endeavors always to transcend such oppositional logic and to see what inwardly unites the opposed terms in mutual dependence (be it ever so invisible and inarticulable). Such transcendence is presumably not what Ames is objecting, too, since it does not fit his definition. And yet my argument is that this excess of and externality to the inevitable oppositionality of discursive terms is what really drives the discourse of transcendence when it is understood apophatically. Even the figures of strict transcendence to which Ames objects, the one operating, for example, in the image of a God creating ex nihilo, are best understood as poetic figures for transcending beyond the discursive altogether. An infinite or absolute God is not really conceivable by a finite mind, so such a conception cancels itself out as a conception. The asymmetry of God and creation is nevertheless an analogical way of figuring what is incommensurable with us and with our thinking and is as such indeterminate.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
For more detailed elaboration along these lines, I refer to the contemporary presentation of a Christian theology of transcendence by Ingolf Dalferth, especially to his most recent book Transcendence and the Secular World: Life-Orientation to Ultimate Presence. Ingolf U. Dalferth, Transzendenz und säkulare Welt: Lebensorientierung an lezter Gegenwart (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015). Some pieces of this book are available in English translation in “The Idea of Transcendence” The Axial Age and Its Consequences, eds. Robert N. Bellah and Hans Joas (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2012) and The Presence and Absence of God, ed. Ingolf U. Dalferth (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009). I have reviewed the book extensively in “Religion and the Limits of Representation,” The Year’s Work in Critical and Cultural Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming in 2017).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Franke, W. (2016). Equivocations of “Transcendence”: Responses to Roger Ames. In: Brown, N., Franke, W. (eds) Transcendence, Immanence, and Intercultural Philosophy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43092-8_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43092-8_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43091-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43092-8
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)