Gordon: Secularization, Genealogy, and the Legitimacy of the Modern Age: Remarks on the Löwith-Blumenberg Debate [22893237]

Talks about the divide between Lowith and Blumenberg debate

1. Lowith

Modern philosophy holds itself independent
Lowith argues that the mundane and non-religious form requires religion as the defining character, which means that secularity cannot exist without religion
Lowith's book runs backwards through time, starts with modern represenitives and walks back from Marx, Hegel, Comte to thinkers of the enlightenment, all the way back to the midieval theologicans.
Attempts to show that Chrisitianity laid the framework for secularization
Examines Burckhardt's attempts to unshackle philosphy, ends up not totally successful, stating that Marx's historical providence of capitalists were its last judgement
Lowith extends the messanic faith of Marx into Hegel's philosphy of history, noting that Hegel cannot resolve the profound ambiguity
Interestingly, Lowith uses the Augustinianian distinction between temporality and eternity to serve as the fundalmental measurement
Distinguishes between the concept of the consonant and dissonant geneaology
- Consonant geneaology tells us more about a concept
- Dissonent geneaology exposes contradictions in the background assumptions
Lowith uses a dissonant geneaology to expose dissonance in the self-conception of modernity

Fought against the idea that modern progress was somehow illegitimate Noted that the logic of modernity contained own, internal ideas of progress that could be kept intact
Notes the Kantian idea of "self-authorization"