Comparative Religion, Taxonomies and 19th Century Philosophies of Science: Chantepie De La Saussaye and Tiele

Abstract

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.

Phenomenology of Religion

“…Four components are requisite to this science: (i) ‘metaphysical, psychological, and historical’ methodologies, (ii) a philosophy of history of civilizations, (iii) specific backgrounds (archaeology, philology, ethnology, psychology, mythology, and folklore), and (iv) an orientation to study religion in its essence and manifestation (Chantepie 1891, pp. 3–8; Ryba 2001, p. 311).…”

“…Only metaphysical and psychological methodologies are formally philosophical, while history – though treated as the material of philosophical analysis – is not. The investigation of religion's essence corresponds to the philosophy of religion that he subdivides into the metaphysics (or objective investigation) of religion and the psychology (or subjective investigation) of religion, but the investigation of this essence's manifestation corresponds to the history of religion (subdivided into ethnology and history, proper) with taxonomy (the systematization of religious phenomena) bridging the philosophy and history of religion (James 1995, p. 42; Ryba 2001, p. 312). Although Chantepie intends to purge everything except the historical from his manual, he includes phenomenology despite the way it muddies methodological boundaries.…”

“…This arrangement identifies the originating ideas of religions, but because genetic approaches are inadequate, also organizes forms of essential features, forms not unlike the Whewellian syzygies: true–false, natural–revealed, popular–personal, mythological–dogmatic, rationalistic–aesthetic‐ethical, ecstatic–depressed, and particular–universal and natural moral (Chantepie 1891). Although Chantepie defers ‘accurate definition’ of religious phenomena to philosophy and avows contentment with historical and ethnographic classification, his deferral is at odds with his execution (Chantepie 1891, p. 67; Ryba 2001, p. 315).…”

“…It is a mediator of subjectivity and objectivity. Its essence is in its appearance and that appearance is given for someone (van der Leeuw 1986, p. 672; Ryba 2001, p. 179). However, like the Husserlian phenomenon, the van der Leeuwian phenomenon is an image whose perspectives and facets are perceptibly, structurally (but non‐causally and non‐factually) connected to other phenomena.…”

“…This notion of phenomenon resembles Otto's and Eliade's ideogram and Hegel's unconceptualized representation. Clarified, its constellation of structural features related to persons, situations, or religions are eternal, irreal, and ahistorical objects van der Leeuw terms ‘ideal types’ (van der Leeuw 1986, p. 673; Ryba 2001, p. 180).…”