The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Uses of Paradox: Religion, Self-Transformation, and the Absurd
Abstract
In this groundbreaking comparative study, Matthew Bagger investigates the role of paradox in Western and Asian religious discourse. Drawing on both philosophy and social scientific theory, he offers a naturalistic explanation of religion's oft-noted propensity to sublime paradox and argues that religious thinkers employ intractable paradoxes as the basis for various techniques of self-transformation. Considering the writings of Kierkegaard, Pseudo-Dionysus, St. John of the Cross, N?g?rjuna, and Chuang-tzu, among others, Bagger identifies two religious uses of paradox: cognitive asceticism, which wields the psychological discomfort of paradox as an instrument of self-transformation, and mysticism, which seeks to transform the self through an alleged extraordinary cognition that ineffably comprehends paradox. Bagger contrasts these techniques of self-transformation with skepticism, which cultivates the appearance of contradiction in order to divest a person of beliefs altogether. Bagger further contends that a thinker's social attitudes determine his or her response to paradox. Attitudes concerning crossing the boundary of a social group prefigure attitudes concerning supposed truths that lie beyond the boundaries of understanding. Individuals who fear crossing the boundary of their social group and would prohibit them tend to use paradox ascetically, while individuals who find the controlled incorporation of outsiders enriching commonly find paradox revelatory. Although scholars have long noted that religious discourse seems to cultivate and perpetuate paradox, their scholarship tends to ratify religious attitudes toward paradox instead of explaining the unusual reaction paradox provokes. A vital contribution to discussions of mystical experience, The Uses of Paradox reveals how much this experience relies on social attitudes and cosmological speculation.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Douglas ' s thesis that ' attitudes towards exchange condition response to anomaly ' allows us to move beyond piecemeal interpretations, elucidating the broad structures of classical Indian Buddhist pollution belief (Bagger 2007: 44).”
From Buddhist Blood Taboo: Mary Douglas, Female Impurity, and Classical Indian Buddhism (2015) · cites this paper as Bagger 2007: 44
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Buddhist Blood Taboo: Mary Douglas, Female Impurity, and Classical Indian Buddhism
Paris Langenberg, A. (2015) · Journal of the American Academy of Religion · doi:10.1093/jaarel/lfv059 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Authors
- Bagger, M.
- Corresponding author
- Bagger, Matthew
- Venue
- Columbia University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Columbia University Press
- Published
- 2007-12-31
- OpenAlex
- W2798468215
- Cited by
- 42
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2012: 26
- FWCI
- 0.62
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Columbia University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Study and Philosophy of Religion
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Karl Barth and Christian Theology
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Kierkegaardian Philosophy and Influence
- Keywords
- paradox, religious discourse, personal transformation, mysticism, skepticism, Søren Kierkegaard, John of the Cross, Nāgārjuna, Zhuangzi, social attitudes, mystical experience
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review