Reviews for Messianic Disruption Of Trinitarian Theology

The average rating for Messianic Disruption Of Trinitarian Theology based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2019-07-25 00:00:00 Norbert Washington The contributions are uneven--some are phenomenal and really challenged my understanding of both hermeneutics and deconstruction, and others trafficked in caricatures and unproductive partisanship. This may sound like I side strongly with "Gadamer" against "Derrida" in a debate that frequently takes center stage in these essays, whether good will and a commitment to shared understanding is (1) possible or (2) desirable. Quite the contrary, I frequently found my predilection for "why can't we all just get along" displaced by quality presentations of alterity that can only be incorporated into a shared understanding unjustly (e.g., incompletely, with distortion, etc.). But I did prefer those essays that exhibited a certain charity to both figureheads by attending to nuance and complications, rather than those that villainized one or the other and failed to draw anything meaningful out of the exchange of addresses/texts that set the stage for this collection. If you're interested in philosophical hermeneutics, deconstruction, 20th century philosophy, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Gadamer, or Derrida, I recommend this book without endorsing all of its contents. It fruitfully sets side-by-side different approaches in examining the intersections/ruptures between the ways of reading and understanding represented by the names Gadamer and Derrida. It probably is best engaged by one with some familiarity with these thinkers' works, as each contributor parses their own take on dominant issues and concepts; the novice may struggle to identify some of the stakes involved and thus be bored by some of the more technical or historical analysis.

Review # 2 was written on 2016-05-30 00:00:00 Zj Mamatas I go back and forth on Gadamer: his work on Plato was solid, but I never could get behind his hermeneutics. In any event, I consider him one of the 'good' continentals. Anyway, it is actually quite funny to read this exchange between him and Derrida. Gadamer is clear-headed but absolutely flummoxed by Derrida's erratic interrogations ("I am finding it difficult to understand these questions", p. 55). Unfortunately, the actual debate between hermeneutics and deconstruction is a scant 70 pages and the rest of the book is dedicated to idle ruminations by erstwhile 'experts' on deconstruction.