I haven’t thought this through in depth yet, but I think what you’re getting at, this tension between Hart and Marion - the conceptual parameters of the anolgia entis vs the experience of saturated phenomenon - also undergirds the conflict between Hart and Jordan Wood when it comes to explicating the notion of hypostasis. The latter scholar is prepared to let the person of Christ (in all its embodied particularity) define both the conditions of divine and human natures; this ‘principle of the subject’ shatters our preconceptions of what it means to be both human and divine. Hart, for various reasons is not prepared to let the idea of hypostasis do such heavy lifting. Just a thought…
Very insightful because this is the major difficulty I see with Hart’s project lately. Given, I love Hart. He’s the dialogue partner I have in my head. He’s brilliant, but I follow Jordan Daniel Wood who i think has a better grasp of Maximus the Confessor and the fecundity of what is at stake in Chalcedonian Christianity. I’ve been re-working through Woods book for awhile now and trying to bring together His insights with my own understanding of he Mystery of Christ (what Maximus the Confessor called hypostatic union of divine and human natures). I’ve come to see that Hart seems to possibly void the incarnation of positive value or the significance it holds for us to understand Gods kenos is, love, and ecstatic going out of himself that we might be healed and deified by this gift not because our nature is divine but because it naturally inclines to surpass its own natural limit and God lovingly condescends to unite us with the uncreated, himself, expanding and growing us and translating us and tearing open our limitations in deification.
Really good thoughts! These are two authors that are dear to my heart, as well (no verbal pun intended). When I was going through existentialist and post structuralist thought, it too was Marion and then Milbank that opened to me something beyond the eternal return of difference; and I, too, have ended up somewhere more akin to Hart, like you’ve said of yourself.
Have you had a chance to read Hart’s The Experience of God, by any chance? It’s probably the closest thing that Hart has written to the phenomenology of the religious life (at least, our experience of the transcendentals in wonder); and it might prove a fruitful dialogue piece between Hart and Marion. 🤷♂️
Thanks. I've been working through how to really pin down the difference with their sort of different horizons. As for The Experience of God, because it's possibly his most approachable writing, I've only read some of it when my wife was reading it. I am planning on reading it again. That's a point of comparison which could prove quite advantageous. That's actually a great question to ask from a phenemonological standpoint, how do we treat transcendentals? Theoretically, I don't think an idealist understanding of transcendentals does just to their objective reality, and phenomenologically it would enter into interesting territory. Now I know what I'm reading next (well along with a few others!)
I haven’t thought this through in depth yet, but I think what you’re getting at, this tension between Hart and Marion - the conceptual parameters of the anolgia entis vs the experience of saturated phenomenon - also undergirds the conflict between Hart and Jordan Wood when it comes to explicating the notion of hypostasis. The latter scholar is prepared to let the person of Christ (in all its embodied particularity) define both the conditions of divine and human natures; this ‘principle of the subject’ shatters our preconceptions of what it means to be both human and divine. Hart, for various reasons is not prepared to let the idea of hypostasis do such heavy lifting. Just a thought…
Very insightful because this is the major difficulty I see with Hart’s project lately. Given, I love Hart. He’s the dialogue partner I have in my head. He’s brilliant, but I follow Jordan Daniel Wood who i think has a better grasp of Maximus the Confessor and the fecundity of what is at stake in Chalcedonian Christianity. I’ve been re-working through Woods book for awhile now and trying to bring together His insights with my own understanding of he Mystery of Christ (what Maximus the Confessor called hypostatic union of divine and human natures). I’ve come to see that Hart seems to possibly void the incarnation of positive value or the significance it holds for us to understand Gods kenos is, love, and ecstatic going out of himself that we might be healed and deified by this gift not because our nature is divine but because it naturally inclines to surpass its own natural limit and God lovingly condescends to unite us with the uncreated, himself, expanding and growing us and translating us and tearing open our limitations in deification.
Really good thoughts! These are two authors that are dear to my heart, as well (no verbal pun intended). When I was going through existentialist and post structuralist thought, it too was Marion and then Milbank that opened to me something beyond the eternal return of difference; and I, too, have ended up somewhere more akin to Hart, like you’ve said of yourself.
Have you had a chance to read Hart’s The Experience of God, by any chance? It’s probably the closest thing that Hart has written to the phenomenology of the religious life (at least, our experience of the transcendentals in wonder); and it might prove a fruitful dialogue piece between Hart and Marion. 🤷♂️
Thanks. I've been working through how to really pin down the difference with their sort of different horizons. As for The Experience of God, because it's possibly his most approachable writing, I've only read some of it when my wife was reading it. I am planning on reading it again. That's a point of comparison which could prove quite advantageous. That's actually a great question to ask from a phenemonological standpoint, how do we treat transcendentals? Theoretically, I don't think an idealist understanding of transcendentals does just to their objective reality, and phenomenologically it would enter into interesting territory. Now I know what I'm reading next (well along with a few others!)