| Chungsoo J. Lee |
| A philosophic and religious corner |
The Idea of the Holy by Rudolf Otto
Otto's use of Kant's notion of the sublime to designate the Holy is very
appealing at first. However, the sublime in Kant remains in the subjective
category. What is sublime in the final analysis in Kant is human rationality (the
power of reason) that overcomes and surpasses the uncontainable: the infinite
scope of reason overcoming the finite capacity of imagination/sensibility. Given
Kant's analysis of the sublime, then, the Holy would have to exceed the sublime.
Another major flaw in Otto is the confusion or non distinction between the
beautiful and the sublime, which Kant rigorously distinguishes. For Otto, what
is beautiful (e.g., a Zen painting) is also the sublime. In fact, what defies rational
articulation for Otto is sublime. Aesthetic objects, lacking conceptual
determination (to put it in Kantian terms), for example, would be sublime and
thus Holy for Otto. But not everything that defies conceptual determination is
holy, such as love, death, birth, a face-to-face encounter, etc.
One chapter in the middle of the book, however, Otto's analysis of the Book of
Job, is remarkable in that Otto sees the realm of and confrontation with evil as
truly beyond the rational and brings out the post-modern elements in the ancient
Book of Job: 'Why must reality make sense?' 'It defies rationality.'
Returning back to Otto and Kant, perhaps one must appreciate the Kantian
moment before the sublime turns into a subjective category; and perhaps this is
what Otto saw the glimpse of in Kant. Recall that in Kant's analysis of the
sublime, the imagination falls short of the magnitude or the dynamic of the
object that defied the scale of sensibility and at that moment recoils back to
itself. Imagination falls short of the object in its apprehension. The object
exceeds sensibility. Kant cannot proceed beyond this point, given his rigorous
delimitation of human knowledge. Instead, he turns to the subject and locates
the sublime in the infinite rational capacity (of which autonomy is one of the
chief examples or the only example). But why must one turn to the subject?
Why not hold on to one's gaze fixed on the object that exceeds one's capacity to
gaze? What would happen then? How could such an 'encounter' be described?
Jean-Luc Marion did, as did Emmanuel Levinas.
Jan. 31, 2011
appealing at first. However, the sublime in Kant remains in the subjective
category. What is sublime in the final analysis in Kant is human rationality (the
power of reason) that overcomes and surpasses the uncontainable: the infinite
scope of reason overcoming the finite capacity of imagination/sensibility. Given
Kant's analysis of the sublime, then, the Holy would have to exceed the sublime.
Another major flaw in Otto is the confusion or non distinction between the
beautiful and the sublime, which Kant rigorously distinguishes. For Otto, what
is beautiful (e.g., a Zen painting) is also the sublime. In fact, what defies rational
articulation for Otto is sublime. Aesthetic objects, lacking conceptual
determination (to put it in Kantian terms), for example, would be sublime and
thus Holy for Otto. But not everything that defies conceptual determination is
holy, such as love, death, birth, a face-to-face encounter, etc.
One chapter in the middle of the book, however, Otto's analysis of the Book of
Job, is remarkable in that Otto sees the realm of and confrontation with evil as
truly beyond the rational and brings out the post-modern elements in the ancient
Book of Job: 'Why must reality make sense?' 'It defies rationality.'
Returning back to Otto and Kant, perhaps one must appreciate the Kantian
moment before the sublime turns into a subjective category; and perhaps this is
what Otto saw the glimpse of in Kant. Recall that in Kant's analysis of the
sublime, the imagination falls short of the magnitude or the dynamic of the
object that defied the scale of sensibility and at that moment recoils back to
itself. Imagination falls short of the object in its apprehension. The object
exceeds sensibility. Kant cannot proceed beyond this point, given his rigorous
delimitation of human knowledge. Instead, he turns to the subject and locates
the sublime in the infinite rational capacity (of which autonomy is one of the
chief examples or the only example). But why must one turn to the subject?
Why not hold on to one's gaze fixed on the object that exceeds one's capacity to
gaze? What would happen then? How could such an 'encounter' be described?
Jean-Luc Marion did, as did Emmanuel Levinas.
Jan. 31, 2011
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |