Modern Age - Fall 2014 - 94

MODERN AGE

conclusions. Voegelin's analysis of the struc-
ture of reality could have been enhanced by a
more "sympathetic reading" of Kierkegaard's
works (10). Nagy believes that "continuing
this work of clarification and applying it to
our very own pursuit remain crucial tasks
for our own faithful pursuit of the path of
understanding" (106).
"Dionysus versus the Crucified: Nietzsche
and Voegelin and the Search for a Truth-
ful Order" (108-136) by Rouven J. Steeves
illuminates Voegelin's search for order in
comparison to the quest for meaning of the
German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche
(1844-1900). Steeves argues that "Eric
Voegelin's Nietzsche is a complex figure"
(108). Voegelin did not fully appreciate
Nietzsche's claim that "existential truth" is
a resolute exposition of a "transcendentally
devoid reality" (10). According to Steeves,
Voegelin did not take Nietzsche seriously,
and he saw no alternative mode of the
quest for order. He ultimately condemned
Nietzsche as a Gnostic. Steeves gives a more
nuanced approach. He suggests that the
Nietzschean search for "immanent mean-
ing," for the "truth of existence," would have
supported Voegelin's own understanding
of modernity. It may even have clarified
Voegelin's search for transcendent order
(10). Steeves concludes, "for it is only from
within, as fellow combatants in the wars of
the spirit, that we can truly understand the
struggle for order" (131).
Arpad Szakolczai's essay "Eric Voegelin
and Neo-Kantianism: Early Formative
Experience or Late Entrapment?" (137-165)
explores Voegelin's relationship to modern
philosophy. He stresses the role of "neo-
Kantianism"-a revived type of philoso-
phy along the lines of Kant-in Voegelin's
development. Voegelin was familiar with
neo-Kantian thinking but had some reserva-
tions about its methods. In The New Science
94

FALL 2014

of Politics, he explicitly and publicly rejected
this form of philosophy. Voegelin's rejec-
tion had a personal dimension: his doctoral
supervisor, Hans Kelsen, was a neo-Kantian
professor of law. "The Kelsen correspondence
focused on two key terms: 'destruction' and
'Gnosticism' " (160). This "Gnostic charac-
ter of Kelsenian neo-Kantianism became
impossible to specify" (162). Szakolczai dis-
cusses the neo-Kantian influences on Voege-
lin but also realizes that Voegelin's rejection
of "neo-Kantianism" was in fact unfinished
due to this complex human relationship with
Kelsen (9).
In his thought-provoking essay, "Voegelin
and Heidegger: Apocalypse without Apoca-
lypse" (165-91), David Walsh puts the Ger-
man philosopher Martin Heidegger (1889-
1976) and Voegelin into a conversation.
Heidegger is noticeably absent in Voegelin's
writings. Today's critic could make the strong
statement that Heidegger, who joined the
Nazi Party in 1933, was overall a "narrow-
minded thinker," which contrasts with
Voegelin's more open historical approach to
reality. Walsh suggests, however, that both
thinkers attempted to " 'refound' Western
philosophy in the wake of its 'derailment' "
(10). And so Voegelin's philosophical quest
may well have benefited from an engagement
with Heidegger's thought. "The remarkable
convergence we have traced between Voege-
lin and Heidegger suggests that we might
also reflect on the point at which they could
actually meet" (183). Walsh states that (re-)
reading Voegelin's theory of consciousness
in the light of Heidegger, might lead to new
insight about man's relation to the structure
of reality (10, 183-90).
Fred Lawrence's contribution, "Voegelin
and Gadamer: Continental Philosophers
Inspired by Plato and Aristotle" (192-217),
presents the German philosopher Hans-
Georg Gadamer (1900-2002) and Voegelin
Modern Age - Fall 2014

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Modern Age - Fall 2014
