- We will send in 10–14 business days.
/images/books/5808725/9781138884304.jpg)
- SAVE -10% with code: EXTRA
Reviews
Description
First published in 2002. This is Volume IV of seven in the Library of Philosophy series on the Philosophy of Religion. The Library of Philosophy was designed as a contribution to the History of Modern Philosophy under the heads: first of Different schools of Thought - Sensationalist, Realist, Idealist, Intuitivist; secondly of different Subjects - Psychology, Ethics, Aesthetics, Political Philosophy, Theology. Written in 1973, work in the philosophy of religion in the last thirty years has focused increasingly on the language of religion. Too often it seems that unless one happens to share the particular religious outlook of the writer, religious or theological premises are being made to yield philosophical conclusions. There is an obvious need for a less question-begging procedure, one that separates the philosophy from the religion. The aim of the study is to make a point about philosophical methodology no grounds are offered for preferring one analysis of religious belief to another.
EXTRA 10 % discount with code: EXTRA
The promotion ends in 21d.22:28:14
The discount code is valid when purchasing from 10 €. Discounts do not stack.
- Author: Paul Helm
- Publisher: Routledge
- Year: 2014
- Pages: 192
- ISBN-10: 1138884308
- ISBN-13: 9781138884304
- Format: 14 x 21.6 x 1 cm, minkšti viršeliai
- Language: English English
First published in 2002. This is Volume IV of seven in the Library of Philosophy series on the Philosophy of Religion. The Library of Philosophy was designed as a contribution to the History of Modern Philosophy under the heads: first of Different schools of Thought - Sensationalist, Realist, Idealist, Intuitivist; secondly of different Subjects - Psychology, Ethics, Aesthetics, Political Philosophy, Theology. Written in 1973, work in the philosophy of religion in the last thirty years has focused increasingly on the language of religion. Too often it seems that unless one happens to share the particular religious outlook of the writer, religious or theological premises are being made to yield philosophical conclusions. There is an obvious need for a less question-begging procedure, one that separates the philosophy from the religion. The aim of the study is to make a point about philosophical methodology no grounds are offered for preferring one analysis of religious belief to another.
Reviews