04 January 2021
- RSIS
- Publication
- RSIS Publications
- Interreligious Relations (IRR) Issue 22 – Indian Buddhist and Continental Christianate Critiques of Ontology: An Exercise in Interreligious Philosophical Dialogue by Rafal K. Stepien
Abstract:
This article sets out to place in interreligious philosophical dialogue certain critiques of ontology elaborated in Indian Buddhist and Continental Christianate contexts. On the Buddhist side, it focuses on the Indian Madhyamaka philosopher Nāgārjuna (c. 150–250 CE), while Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) is taken as representative of the Continental tradition. Following a methodological explanation of, and theoretical justification for, the project of “interreligious philosophical dialogue” as well as the use of “Christianate” throughout the paper, it introduces the critiques levelled at any and all ontological projects – understood as efforts to comprehend “being” – by these representative philosophers working within two over-arching religio-philosophical traditions. In the final section, the paper situates this dialogue within relevant contemporary scholarly debates, and thereby highlights its distinctive approach.
Last updated on 16/12/2021
Abstract:
This article sets out to place in interreligious philosophical dialogue certain critiques of ontology elaborated in Indian Buddhist and Continental Christianate contexts. On the Buddhist side, it focuses on the Indian Madhyamaka philosopher Nāgārjuna (c. 150–250 CE), while Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) is taken as representative of the Continental tradition. Following a methodological explanation of, and theoretical justification for, the project of “interreligious philosophical dialogue” as well as the use of “Christianate” throughout the paper, it introduces the critiques levelled at any and all ontological projects – understood as efforts to comprehend “being” – by these representative philosophers working within two over-arching religio-philosophical traditions. In the final section, the paper situates this dialogue within relevant contemporary scholarly debates, and thereby highlights its distinctive approach.
Last updated on 16/12/2021