Search

Berkeley's immaterialist philosophy has been frequently underestimated as a result of the misunderstanding of his ontological proposal, specifically because of the complexity of his concept of idea. The aim of this paper is then to clarify and explain that concept because from it depends the correct understanding of Berkeley's ontological and immaterialist proposal. To do this, 1) I will show some examples of the misunderstanding that the berkeleian proposal has had, mainly due to his concept of idea; 2) I will track how this notion was being developed in Berkeley's early notes, known as Philosophical Commentaries; 3) I will analyze and explain the concept of idea from the published work of Berkeley, that is, from the Principles and Dialogues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How are we to understand the contradiction of a philosophy that claims to be a legitimate heir of the phenomenological tradition but, at the same time, intends to break free from its limits to allow an unconditioned manifestation? Should we comprehend Jean-Luc Marion's work as a true renovation of phenomenology -as he and his followers do-, or should we instead consider it as a pure theology independent from the phenomenological movement? Why would the theological way be the only possible way out of the crisis of contemporary metaphysics denounced by Marion and, even more, a necessary way? To answer these and other questions, this paper develops some of the paradoxes that arise from the Marionian theological turn, distinguishing two possible ways of understanding its Kehre: either as a deviation that allows extending phenomenology to new fields, or as a return to and abandonment of the phenomenological project. Finally, we wonder if Marion's proposal of a gradual ontology does not encourage a third possible way, which would lead us to think of his thought not as phenomenology anymore, but as a gradualist-theological fansiology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]