International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 

About: International Journal for Philosophy of Religion is an academic journal published by Springer Nature. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Philosophy of religion & Argument. It has an ISSN identifier of 0020-7047. Over the lifetime, 1194 publications have been published receiving 13315 citations.

Freud and Philosophy an Essay on Interpretation

Abstract: If Paul Ricoeur is correct in seeing the various currents of contemporary philosophy all converging on the problem of a "grand philosophy of language," then the first sixty pages of this absorbing study of Freud may become the rallying point from which future work can begin.This first part of Freud and Philosophy, "Problematic," presents a profound and clear theory of signification, symbol, and interpretation. The second part, "A Reading of Freud," is required reading for anyone seriously interested in psychoanalysis. The third section interpretation of Ricoeur's own theory of symbol-particularly religious symbol-which places this study at the center of contemporary debate over the sense of myth.In this book are revealed Ricoeur the philosopher of language; Ricoeur the critic of Freud; and Ricoeur the theologian of religious symbol. The author is outstanding in all three roles, and the book that emerges is of rare profundity, enormous scope, and complete timeliness.Paul Ricoeur is professor of philosophy at the University of Paris. "Paul Ricouer...has done a study that is all too rare these days, in which one intellect comes to grips with another, in which a scholar devotes himself to a thoughtful, searching, and comprehensive study of a genius. ..The final result is a unique survey of the panorama of Freudian thought by an observer who, although starting from outside, succeeds in penetrating to its core." -American Journal of Psychiatry "Primarily an inquiry into the foundations of language and hermeneutics...[Ricoeur uses] the Freudian 'hermeneutics of suspicion' as a corrective and counter-balance for phenomenology and create a 'new phenomenology'...This important work...should have an impact upon serious thinking in philosophy, theology, psychology, and other areas which have been affected by Freud studies."-International Philosophical Quarterly "A stimulating tour de force that allows us to envisage both the psychoanalytic body of knowledge and the psychoanalytic movement in a broad perspective within the framework of its links to culture, history and the evolution of Western intellectual thought." - Psychoanalytic Quarterly Paul Ricoeur is a professor of philosophy at the University of Chicago and the University of Paris.

The humean obstacle to evidential arguments from suffering: On avoiding the evils of “appearance”

Abstract: Many of us - believers as well as nonbelievers, car mechanics as well as philosophers - have at some times in our lives felt instances of suffering in this world to be evidence against theism, according to which the universe is the creation of a wholly good Being who loves his creatures, and who lacks nothing in wisdom and power If it has proven hard to turn this feeling into a good argument, it has, perhaps, proven just as hard to get rid of it Indeed, the most logically sophisticated responses to the "problem of evil" can leave one wondering whether our intuitive perplexities have not been lost in the gears of the formal machinery brought to bear on them Maybe this is an unavoidable epiphenomenon of analysis; nevertheless, I want to try to mitigate it here For this reason (and a second forthcoming one), my springboard will be William Rowe's recent formulation of the case from suffering against theism} Rowe exemplifies the recent turn away from "logical" (or "deductive," or "demonstrative s ) formulations, construing the case instead as "evidential" (or "inductive," or "probabilistic") in nature The crux of his argument is that much suffering "does not appear to serve any outweighing good" This "does not appear" defence is succinct and non-technical, affording considerable insight into our ordinary intuitions, but also making itself easy prey to misconstrual I shall thus be amplifying Rowe's argument and defending it against specious criticisms, as well as - ultimately rebutting it This close attention to Rowe and his critics, however, is not an endin-itself It is a means of elucidating and vindicating a perspective from which we can see why a theist should, as Hume puts it, "never retract his belief'' on account of the suffering atheologians are inclined to adduce as evidence against theism Vindicating this perspective requires coming to close grips with the most lucid atheological evidential case one can find - and this is my second reason for taking Rowe's work as a springboard