 |
|
| Why Durkheim Really Thought that Buddhism Was a ‘Religion’ (in Memoriam Massimo Rosati) | ||
| 作者 | Strenski, Ivan (著) |
|---|---|
| 出處題名 | Religion |
| 卷期 | v.50 n.4 |
| 出版日期 | 2020 |
| 頁次 | 653 - 670 |
| 出版者 | Taylor & Francis Ltd |
| 出版者網址 | http://www.tandf.co.uk/ |
| 出版地 | Abingdon, UK [阿賓登, 英國] |
| 資料類型 | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
| 使用語言 | 英文=English |
| 附註項 | Author Affiliation: Department of Religious Studies, University of California, Riverside, CA, USA |
| 關鍵詞 | Making a life; dynamogenism; Buddhism |
| 摘要 | In The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, and in ‘On the Definition of Religious Phenomena,' Durkheim famously asserted both that Buddhism was a ‘religion' and an ‘atheistic' one at that. Why he did so is a problem long-considered settled. Of two possible answers, one is commonplace, while the other is uncommon and consequential. I shall attempt to explicate Durkheim's uncommon and far- reaching, but overlooked, reasons for declaring atheistic Buddhism a ‘religion.' This essay concurs with Martin Southwold that Durkheim believed – wrongly – that religion was ‘monothetic' class, when, in fact, it was ‘polythetic.' In order to admit Buddhism as a ‘religion,' Durkheim discovered that he had to apply different criteria for defining Buddhism as ‘religion’ than to theistic religions. Buddhism did not radiate dynamogenic force or induce a sense of existential dependence. Buddhism was a religion because it was an agent in making a meaningful life. |
| ISSN | 0048721X (P); 10961151 (E) |
| DOI | 10.1080/0048721X.2020.1761004 |
| 點閱次數 | 258 |
| 建檔日期 | 2023.07.05 |
| 更新日期 | 2023.07.06 |
建議您使用 Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) 瀏覽器能獲得較好的檢索效果，IE不支援本檢索系統。
