Well, you have my curiosity about Tillich now-lol. But I think Sartre would say: "why not just make a clean cut and not spend a moment investigating him (based on no knowledge that is true).
I think Sartre would say Tillich was not facing reality, but trying to parse it.
I am sure Tillich is smart, but I have read smart. Was he smarter than Russell, Whitehead, or Einstein? Not likely, so what is he talking about? Russell, Whitehead and Einstein all considered the same subject as Tillich I am sure, if not Tillich himself.
Russell and Sartre were stark and Sartra's book Nausea reflected both of their conclusions. Einstein was a romantic of sorts and allowed himself to go with the flow and embraced his tribe, but still he believed only in the wonder of the universe (whatever that is). Whitehead was purely intellectual and a bit crazy, but one of my favorites-lol. He thought consciousnes was a third system in the universe, as do I.
I guess what I am saying is that none of the above, felt it was worth their time to read guys like Tillich, I think. I sure never heard of them mention him or Kierkegaard.
So using logic, if the best and the brightest found nothing worthwhile in Kirkegasard or Tillich, what are the chances I would.
Those guys, and their buddies, are sort of the final authority for me. |
