It has been generally recognized that an important influence on the development of early phenomenologies of religion was Hegel. It is the purpose of this paper to provide a deep reading of the phenomenologies of C.P. Tiele and P.D. Chantepie de la Saussaye in order to demonstrate the extent of Hegel's influence on their thought. This demonstration proceeds deconstructively (in the Heideggerian, not the Derridean, sense) to establish (a) the questionability of each thinker's claim to represent a unitary science of religion and to show (b) the oppositions between the respective notions of taxonomy and the notions of science of religion. The paper concludes by suggesting that although both thinkers may have appropriated some Hegelian evolutionary elements, their respective conceptions of science were also influenced by the "received" view that lay behind the writings of scientific phenomenologists such as Robison, Hamilton and Whewell.

Contemporary phenomenology of religion is afflicted by three vicissitudes: (a) neglect or criticism due to the hegemony of postmodern theories and methods in the study of religions, (b) a multiplicity of phenomenological methods in the study of religions, and (c) the perceived disconnection between philosophical and religious studies approaches to phenomenology. In this article, I intend to show that none of these afflictions are either necessary or fatal to phenomenology of religion. This is accomplished in three steps. After surveying the salient features of philosophical and religious studies approaches to the phenomenology of religion, I propose a general definition of 'phenomenology of religion' which demonstrates a unity in the midst of a diversity of approaches. I then argue that phenomenology, thus conceived, can answer the postmodern critiques and can once again become a viable approach to description of religions as well as a first methodological step toward theories of religion. Thomas Ryba

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract available