Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
discussion On the Imperviousness of Persons: A Reply to Jan Olof Bengtsson phillip ferreir a Kutztown University I. as r egul ar r e aders of The Pluralist are aware, there appeared in 2008 an issue devoted to Jan Olof Bengtsson’s The Worldview of Personalism. The issue included five articles, each concerned with a different aspect of the book; and after each article, there was a “Reply” by Bengtsson. In what fol- lows, I shall say something about Bengtsson’s reply to my own contribution, “Absolute and Personal Idealism.” However, first let me briefly describe that article’s argument. In “Absolute and Personal Idealism,” I examined the personalist attack on absolutism as formulated by Andrew Seth Pringle-Pattison in two works: Hegelianism and Personality and The Idea of God in the Light of Recent Phi- losophy. In the first section of my article, I argued that Pringle-Pattison had largely failed to grasp the central idea of Hegel’s Logic—particularly Hegel’s conception of the absolute. According to Pringle-Pattison (and most personal- ists), the Hegelian absolute is “impersonal” in nature, and it falsifies the true relation between finite individuality and reality as a whole. In the second half of my discussion, the focus shifted to
The Pluralist – University of Illinois Press
Published: Mar 18, 2011
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.