GEORGES BATAILLE'S MYSTICAL CRUELTY
In this reply to Kent Brintnall's response to my essay on Georges Bataille and the ethics of ecstasy, I explore two primary questions: whether instrumentalization is inherently violent and non-instrumentalization is inherently non-violent, and whether there is a way to intervene in the world th...
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Wiley-Blackwell
2012
|
| Dans: |
Journal of religious ethics
Année: 2012, Volume: 40, Numéro: 3, Pages: 551-555 |
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
Mysticism
B Violence B Sarah Coakley B Georges Bataille |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Édition parallèle: | Non-électronique
|
| Résumé: | In this reply to Kent Brintnall's response to my essay on Georges Bataille and the ethics of ecstasy, I explore two primary questions: whether instrumentalization is inherently violent and non-instrumentalization is inherently non-violent, and whether there is a way to intervene in the world that avoids both “apathetic disengagement” and domination. I endorse the view that instrumentalization can be good as well as bad, and I suggest that it is possible to strive to intervene in the world without striving to master it. I make reference to Sarah Coakley as a Christian theologian who advances particular practices that aim for non-dominating intervention in theworld. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1467-9795 |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Journal of religious ethics
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9795.2012.00536.x |