What is the subaltern of the comparative philosophy of religion?

It is claimed that Comparative Philosophy of Religion (CPR) mistakenly builds on the dogmas of comparative religion (or history of religions) and philosophy of religion. Thus, the belief that there are things common and therefore comparable between two or more traditions and that these objects of comparison are of philosophical or theological significance are questions that continue to trouble the field. Just what does one compare, how does one choose what to compare or why, through what methodological and epistemic tools, and who is it that carries out the tasks? But what has remained unasked and unanalyzed are the larger meta-questions concerning the motivation, civilizational presuppositions, cultural parochialism, or legacies of orientalism, modernity, and (post-)colonialism that together affect the boundedness of certain key categories and thematic issues in the comparative enterprise such as God or the Transcendent, Creation, the Problem of Evil, the Afterlife, Sin, Redemption, Purpose, and the End. Is difference with respect to alterity and altarity permissible? If so, what a postcolonial, differently gendered, cross-cultural critique would look like and what is left of CPR are two such questions explored here.

Defuturing an architecture of destruction: a reconciliation of Van Berkel and Bos to the new design philosophy of Tony Fry

For some time now Tony Fry has promoted the idea of 'The Sustainment', an idea that asserts a paradigm shift in attitudes to consumption. 'The Sustainment' recognises that increasingly human futures are products of self-determination and not chance. Fry’s hypothesis can be understood through his concept of Defuturing, a philosophy that questions the role of design and the responsibility of designers to facilitating the ability to sustain (Fry 1999).
Central to Fry’s philosophy is an awareness that it is in the best interests of designers and their clients, as inhabitants of cultures increasingly driven by technology, to be aware of the relationships between the products and theories of design and the processes and implications of technological change. This is an awareness that is central to the concepts, work, and methodologies of the ‘UN Studio’ of Van Berkel and Bos described and elaborated upon in Move – Imagination, Techniques, and Effects (Van Berkel & Bos 1999). Here, Ben Van Berkel defines the parameters and methodologies employed by UN Studio in an environment of technological and socio-economic change. The Dutch practice could be said to exemplify something of a zeitgeist in current architectural design that sees architects, as Van Berkel and Bos view them, as “fashion designers of the future, dressing events to come and holding up a mirror to the world (Van Berkel & Bos 1999, back cover).” It is a zeitgeist that Fry might see as aligned to the resilient hype of ‘new creativity’, ‘globalisation’ the ‘romance with technology’, and the vacuous-ness of the world of fashion. (Fry The Voice of Sustainment: on Design Intelligence 2005).
A source of breaking down such design propaganda is identified by Fry in the notion of ‘scenarios,’ which “provide a mechanism for politico-practice assemblage in which dialogues and narratives of change can be rehearsed in ways that enable participants to re-educate themselves via critical confrontations” (Fry The Voice of Sustainment: on Design Intelligence 2005). From such a perspective this paper aims to practically illustrate and ground the Defuturing of Fry by establishing a dialogue between his writings and the theories that have generated the architectural designs of Van Berkel and Bos and there UN Studio. This will be a ‘scenario’ that examines therefore an appropriation and transformation of the applied intellectual practice of Van Berkel and Bos. Through this confrontation we shall explore the question of why sustainability appears to be so low in the agenda of many pre-eminent contemporary architects, and how we might refocus therefore practice and theory on the ability to sustain.

Meta-philosophy of religion : the analytic-continental divide in philosophy of religion

How is the philosophical study of religion best pursued? Responses to this meta-philosophical question tend to recapitulate the analytic-Continental divide in philosophy in general. My aim is to examine the nature of this divide, particularly as it has manifested itself in the philosophy of religion. I begin with a comparison of the stylistic differences in the language of the two traditions, taking the work of Alvin Plantinga and John Caputo as exemplars of the analytic and Continental schools respectively. In order to account for these stylistic divergences, however, it is necessary to delve further into meta-philosophy. I go on to show how each philosophical school models itself on different theoretical practices, the analytic school mimicking the scientific style of inquiry, while in Continental philosophy it is the arts and humanities rather than the sciences that provide the model for philosophical discourse. By situating themselves in such different genres,  analytic and Continental philosophers have developed contrasting, if not mutually exclusive, methods for pursuing the philosophy of religion.