“What we see, therefore, is a strangely disjointed history. These modern, secularist assumptions, which are questioned and brought into doubt more and more, certainly pervade much if not all the radical death of God theologies of the 1960’s. The question, which becomes the central question that this volume seeks to address, is the following: How do we get from the post-Christian, post-Holocaust, and largely secular death of God theologies of the 1960’s to the postmodern return of religion? Put otherwise, what happens when we move from the early claim that deconstruction is the hermeneutic of the death of God to the subsequent effort at deconstructing the death of God? What happens when the critical linking of the death of God with deconstruction comes full circle? And finally, how is it that this question of the return of religion is transmitted not by theologians and/or religious leaders but by and through philosophers and cultural theorists who heretofore had little or no expressed interest in religious or theological questions?”
–After the Death of God, John D. Caputo, Gianni Vatitimo, ed. Jeffrey W. Robbins p. 12-13.
The Well of Questions 
September 5, 2009 at 11:10 pm |
I don’t mean to be a stick in the mud, but . . . what’s the point of this post? To let everyone know deconstruction is dialectical? There’s no surprise there—that’s pretty explicitly how deconstruction works. So, I figure I must be missing something. What would that something be?
September 8, 2009 at 3:04 am |
No. I just thought it was just an example of the dialectical nature of deconstruction that was particularly silly to me. It’s not a post meant to change your life.