J. Aaron Simmons

Evangelical Environmentalism: Oxymoron or Opportunity?

Often defined by affiliation with conservative politics and a limited range of moral issues concerning “family values,” evangelical Christianity in the United States might seem like an odd place to look for a substantial environmental ethic. However, over the past few years many evangelicals have been working very hard to change this public face of their community and are becoming increasingly active in environmental issues. In this essay, I provide an overview of this trend by articulating the major tenants of evangelical environmentalism, outlining the major events in its history, and suggesting four primary obstacles to continued participation in this area. I contend that evangelical environmentalism is not an oxymoronic conception, but instead represents an opportunity for substantial progress as the engagement between religion and ecology becomes increasingly important to contemporary scholarly debates and public policy.

Prospects for A Levinasian Epistemic Infinitism

Abstract Epistemic infinitism is certainly not a majority view in contemporary epistemology. While there are some examples of infinitism in the history of philosophy, more work needs to be done mining this history in order to provide a richer understanding of how infinitism might be formulated internal to different philosophical frameworks. Accordingly, we argue that the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas can be read as operating according to an ‘impure’ model of epistemic infinitism. The infinite obligation inaugurated by the ‘face to face encounter’ with the Other yields an approach to the ethics of belief that accords with infinitism. This reading of Levinas brings his ethical thought into dialogue with contemporary epistemology as well as provides an historical example of infinitism within the current debates.

Introduction: Old Questions and New Frontiers in the Philosophy of Religion

In this introduction to the volume, Simmons offers a general survey of the state of philosophy of religion as a discourse that faces ambiguities about its future. Arguing that focusing on negative theology as a resource for contemporary philosophy of religion allows for constructive engagement between analytic and continental traditions, between philosophy and religious studies, and also fosters cross-cultural inquiry, Simmons concludes by outlining the contents of the volume and the importance of the current project.

Speaking About Silence (Sort of): When Does a Philosophy of the Unsayable Just Stop Being Philosophy?

In this chapter, Simmons offers a critical engagement with William Franke’s A Philosophy of the Unsayable. Specifically focusing on Franke’s account of the current state of philosophy of religion, Simmons takes issue with the way in which Franke seems to ignore mainstream analytic approaches in his assessment. Moreover, Simmons highlights potential obstacles that a philosophy of the unsayable might face as concerns the status of such a discourse when considered as “philosophy.” Namely, it seems that being able to state clear theses and then offer argumentative evidence for them is crucial for philosophy. Yet such argumentative clarity seems to be what Franke’s proposal eschews. Simmons concludes by offering constructive suggestions for how Franke might overcome such problems by drawing on a broader set of philosophical resources.

Introduction: On Living into the Future

In this Introduction, J. Aaron Simmons offers an account of the guiding aims and orientations of the volume. Arguing that phenomenology must be considered as not only occurring in the twenty-first century, but as presented for the twenty-first century, Simmons suggests that the contributors to this volume all offer bold proposals for specific questions, themes, and thinkers that should receive sustained attention as the debates unfold in the coming decades. The specific themes of the book include justice and value, meaning and critique, emotion and revelation, embodiment and affectivity, pragmatism, and calling phenomenology into question.