|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why Durkheim Really Thought that Buddhism Was a ‘Religion’ (in Memoriam Massimo Rosati) |
|
|
|
| Author |
Strenski, Ivan (著)
|
|---|
| Source |
Religion
|
|---|
| Volume | v.50 n.4 |
|---|
| Date | 2020 |
|---|
| Pages | 653 - 670 |
|---|
| Publisher | Taylor & Francis Ltd |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
http://www.tandf.co.uk/
|
|---|
| Location | Abingdon, UK [阿賓登, 英國] |
|---|
| Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| Language | 英文=English |
|---|
| Note | Author Affiliation: Department of Religious Studies, University of California, Riverside, CA, USA |
|---|
| Keyword | Making a life; dynamogenism; Buddhism |
|---|
| Abstract | 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 |
|---|
| Hits | 130 |
|---|
| Created date | 2023.07.05 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2023.07.06 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
