![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
In his critique of Modernity and the modern Gnosis, the prominent Italian Catholic philosopher Augusto Del Noce was particularly influenced by Eric Voegelin’s use of the two concepts in his political theory. The aim of this article is to present the various aspects of the idea of history proposed by Voegelin followed by Del Noce’s response and interpretation of them in order to show the similarities and differences between their views. More specifically, the comparison between Voegelin and Del Noce centers on the question of the eidos or “form” of history and on the difference, important for Del Noce, between ancient and modern Gnosis.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1. See Duso and Chignola, “Die Rezeption Voegelins in Italien”; Thomassen and Forlenza, “Voegelin’s Impact on the Italian Response”; Lagi and Rosboch, Quale modernità.
2. Voegelin, The New Science of Politics, 186. Hereafter page references to this work are cited in the text.
3. Opitz, “Zur genesis und Gestalt,” 258.
4. Opitz, “Die Gnosis-These,” 7ff.
5. Voegelin, Machiavelli’s Prince; Voegelin, “Apocalissi e Rivoluzione.”
6. Voegelin, Autobiographical Reflections, 71.
7. Voegelin, The Political Religions, 31.
8. Hollweck, Wie legitim ist die Moderne, 5ff.
9. The reconstruction of political thought in Voegelin’s History of Political Ideas is centered precisely on the spiritual crisis from which the “modern” springs. Peter Opitz writes: “They deal (the three volumes on the modern world of History) with the relationship between religion and politics and the emergence of an inner-worldly religiosity within the framework of Western civilization. Of particular value is the very extensive and decisive part of the History, produced between 1944 and 1948, which in the Collected Works was published under the title Crisis and the Apocalypse of Man. Its theme is the spiritual crisis of the Western world, which Voegelin first dealt with in his 1938 essay “Political Religions.” Opitz, Vorwort des Herausgebers in Voegelin, Die Krise, 16 (my translation).
10. The analysis of Machiavelli’s thought in Voegelin’s History of Political Ideas was revised and published in 1951 under the title, Machiavelli’s Prince: Background and Formation.
11. Voegelin, “Order of Power: Machiavelli,” 57.
12. Del Noce, Notes on Western Irreligion, 271.
13. Del Noce, The Age of Secularization, 169.
14. Del Noce, “Eric Voegelin and the Critique,” 287.
15. Ibid., 293: “The influence of Joachimite thought is very well known. On this topic, Löwith’s book about the theological origins of the philosophy of history has been one of the most widely read books in history of philosophy of the last few years. However, Voegelin’s viewpoint is completely different and leads, or at least opens the way, to completely different results. Indeed, his research is not primarily about philosophy of history but about modern political societies.”
16. Ibid., 289, 288.
17. The interpretation of anti-Fascism as a covert form of Fascism is one of the most important issues for Del Noce. See Del Noce, Antifascismo, 295.
18. Del Noce, The Age of Secularization, 28, 29, 16.
19. See Perniola, Berlusconi o il 68 realizzato.
20. Del Noce, The Problem of Atheism, 321.
21. Del Noce, The Age of Secularization, 238.
22. Del Noce, L’interpretazione transpolitica, 20.
23. Del Noce’s in-depth analysis of these two principles, complemented by the juxtaposition of Marx and Engels, appears in “Marx’s ‘Non-Philosophy’ and Communism as a Political Reality” (1946), in The Problem of Atheism, 169.
24. Del Noce writes in The Age of Secularization, 169: “Mere historical materialism would lead to a doctrine of complete relativism, to a reduction of all world views to expressions as instruments of the power of social groups, without making an exception for the Marxist conception itself, which instead claims to be true and cannot act as a revolutionary force without being perceived as true. Now, these two aspects tend to break apart from each other when they reach their most radical form. The first must turn into sociologism. As for the most complete extension of the dialectical aspect of Marxism, separated from materialism, I believe it already happened, and it manifested itself in philosophical form in Actualism.”
25. Del Noce, L’interpretazione transpolitica, 30.
26. Del Noce, The Age of Secularization, 101ff.
27. Del Noce, L’interpretazione transpolitica, 21, 19.
28. Del Noce, The Age of Secularization, 156.
29. Del Noce, “Eric Voegelin and the Critique,” 295.
30. Ibid., 297.
31. Voegelin, “Apocalissi e Rivoluzione,” 124.
32. Parotto, Zum Einfluss, 25ff.
33. Del Noce, Revolution, Risorgimento, Tradition, 58.
34. Del Noce, “Eric Voegelin and the Critique,” 298.
35. Del Noce, Revolution, Risorgimento, Tradition, 58.
36. Del Noce, “L’inattualità della metafisica dell’essere,” 367, 368.
37. Voegelin, Anamnesis, 393ff.
38. Voegelin, What Is History, 21.
39. Ibid., 69.
40. Ibid., “This additional factor that makes the experience historically relevant is the truth of order that it reveals with obligatory force for every man,” 48.
41. Del Noce, Notes on Western Irreligion, 253.
42. Del Noce, “Authority versus Power,” 195.
43. Del Noce, “L’inattualità della metafisica dell’essere,” 367.
44. Del Noce, “Eric Voegelin and the Critique,” 196.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Giuliana Parotto
Giuliana Parotto is Professor of Political Philosophy at the University of Trieste, Italy. Her expertise is in political theology. Her current research examines the symbol of the body in political thought and leadership practices in contemporary politics.
![Supercharge Your Next Research Paper: Research and write your next paper with Jenni AI.]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/112444/Skyscraper-humanities.png"})