http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2007/12/05/spinozas-immanence/ Secularism, religion, and the public sphere Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:51:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2007/12/05/spinozas-immanence/#comment-23 Robert Bellah Thu, 06 Dec 2007 03:17:18 +0000 http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2007/12/05/spinozas-immanence/#comment-23 Having read Lars Tønder's contribution, it to some degree parallels some discussions at the AAR panel on Taylor's book last month. Taylor does seem to use the idea of immanence in a very negative way, but even in the Immanent Frame chapter he distinguishes between open and closed immanence, and it is the latter he is criticizing. There is a long tradition of religious immanence, including even Augustine, and Taylor draws examples from that tradition. So I think there is a terminological problem with "immanence" having two meanings and Taylor is to be sure not clear in distinguishing them. Having read Lars Tønder’s contribution, it to some degree parallels some discussions at the AAR panel on Taylor’s book last month. Taylor does seem to use the idea of immanence in a very negative way, but even in the Immanent Frame chapter he distinguishes between open and closed immanence, and it is the latter he is criticizing. There is a long tradition of religious immanence, including even Augustine, and Taylor draws examples from that tradition. So I think there is a terminological problem with “immanence” having two meanings and Taylor is to be sure not clear in distinguishing them.

]]>