Scholarlink

<p>In light of the publication of Brook Ziporyn’s monograph, <i>Experiments in Mystical Atheism</i>, the present article attempts a philosophical comparison of two key “mystical atheists”: the Chinese neo-Daoist Guo Xiang 郭象 (252–312) and the early modern Dutch philosopher Benedict de Spinoza (1632–1677). Specifically, it argues that Guo and Spinoza both display a core commitment to <i>radical ontological immanence</i> – the idea that reality is an absolute, self-producing system unaffected by transcendent powers or principles. By drawing out the consequences of this commitment through the interlinked fields of epistemology, ethics and soteriology, it aspires to provide a highly compressed comparative analysis of two culturally and historically remote, yet deeply philosophically resonant, critiques of theistic transcendence. By thus revealing the extent of the structural – and spiritual – parallels between two philosophers, born more than a millennium apart on opposite ends of the Eurasian landmass, it hopes to contribute to the ongoing inductive justification of Ziporyn’s overall hermeneutic project, centered on the speculative identification of a cross-cultural tradition of “mystical atheism”. Such an interpretative undertaking has profound implications for ongoing debates on the character of religion in the modern world.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The Lone-Transformation of God: Intuition, Identity and Immortality in Guo Xiang and Spinoza

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月16日

查看全文
  • Paul Napier

摘要

In light of the publication of Brook Ziporyn’s monograph, Experiments in Mystical Atheism, the present article attempts a philosophical comparison of two key “mystical atheists”: the Chinese neo-Daoist Guo Xiang 郭象 (252–312) and the early modern Dutch philosopher Benedict de Spinoza (1632–1677). Specifically, it argues that Guo and Spinoza both display a core commitment to radical ontological immanence – the idea that reality is an absolute, self-producing system unaffected by transcendent powers or principles. By drawing out the consequences of this commitment through the interlinked fields of epistemology, ethics and soteriology, it aspires to provide a highly compressed comparative analysis of two culturally and historically remote, yet deeply philosophically resonant, critiques of theistic transcendence. By thus revealing the extent of the structural – and spiritual – parallels between two philosophers, born more than a millennium apart on opposite ends of the Eurasian landmass, it hopes to contribute to the ongoing inductive justification of Ziporyn’s overall hermeneutic project, centered on the speculative identification of a cross-cultural tradition of “mystical atheism”. Such an interpretative undertaking has profound implications for ongoing debates on the character of religion in the modern world.