Hubbry Logo
ImmanenceImmanenceMain
Open search
Immanence
Community hub
Immanence
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Immanence
Immanence
Immanence
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The doctrine or theory of immanence holds that the divine encompasses or is manifested in the material world. It is held by some philosophical and metaphysical theories of divine presence. Immanence is usually applied in monotheistic, pantheistic, pandeistic, or panentheistic faiths to suggest that the spiritual world permeates the mundane. It is often contrasted with theories of transcendence, in which the divine is seen to be outside the material world.

Major faiths commonly devote significant philosophical efforts to explaining the relationship between immanence and transcendence but do so in different ways, such as:

  • casting immanence as a characteristic of a transcendent God (common in Abrahamic religions),
  • subsuming immanent personal gods in a greater transcendent being (such as with Brahman in Hinduism), or
  • approaching the question of transcendence as something which can only be answered through an appraisal of immanence.

Western esotericism

[edit]

Another meaning of immanence is the quality of being contained within, or remaining within the boundaries of a person, of the world, or of the mind. This meaning is more common within Christian and other monotheist theology, in which the one God is considered to transcend his creation. Pythagoreanism says that the nous is an intelligent principle of the world acting with a specific intention. This is the divine reason regarded in Neoplatonism as the first emanation of the divine.[1]: §61  From the nous emerges the world soul, which gives rise to the manifest realm. Neoplatonic gnosticism goes on to say the Godhead is the Father, Mother, and Son (Zeus). In the mind of Zeus, the ideas are distinctly articulated and become the Logos by which he creates the world. These ideas become active in the Mind (nous) of Zeus. With him is the Power and from him is the nous.[2] This theology further explains that Zeus is called Demiurge (Dêmiourgos, Creator), Maker (Poiêtês), and Craftsman (Technitês).[3] The nous of the demiurge proceeds outward into manifestation, becoming living ideas. They give rise to a lineage of mortal human souls.[4] The components of the soul are[5] 1) the higher soul, seat of the intuitive mind (divine nous); 2) the rational soul (logistikon) (seat of discursive reason / dianoia); 3) the nonrational soul (alogia), responsible for the senses, appetites, and motion. Zeus thinks the articulated ideas (logos). The idea of ideas (eidos - eidôn), provides a model of the Paradigm of the Universe, which the Demiurge contemplates in his articulation of the ideas and his creation of the world according to the Logos.[6]

Buddhism

[edit]

Tantric Buddhism and Dzogchen posit a non-dual basis for both experience and reality that could be considered an exposition of a philosophy of immanence that has a history on the subcontinent of India from early CE to the present. A paradoxical non-dual awareness or rigpa (Tibetan — vidya in Sanskrit) — is said to be the 'self-perfected state' of all beings. Scholarly works differentiate these traditions from monism. The non-dual is said to be not immanent and not transcendent, not neither, nor both. One classical exposition is the Madhyamaka refutation of extremes that the philosopher-adept Nagarjuna propounded.

Exponents of this non-dual tradition emphasize the importance of a direct experience of non-duality through both meditative practice and philosophical investigation. In one version, one maintains awareness as thoughts arise and dissolve within the 'field' of mind; one does not accept or reject them, rather one lets the mind wander as it will until a subtle sense of immanence dawns. Vipassana, or insight, is the integration of one's 'presence of awareness' with that which arises in the mind. Non-duality or rigpa is said to be the recognition that both the quiet, calm, abiding state as found in samatha and the movement or arising of phenomena as found in vipassana are not separate.

Christianity

[edit]

Catholicism, Protestantism, and Eastern Christianity

[edit]
Part of a series on the
Attributes of God
in Christianity
Core attributes
Overarching attributes
Miscellaneous
Emotions expressed by God

According to Christian theology, the transcendent God, who cannot be approached or seen in essence or being, becomes immanent primarily in the God-man Jesus the Christ, who is the incarnate Second Person of the Trinity. In Byzantine Rite theology the immanence of God is expressed as the hypostases or energies of God, who in his essence is incomprehensible and transcendent. In Catholic theology, Christ and the Holy Spirit immanently reveal themselves; God the Father only reveals himself immanently vicariously through the Son and Spirit, and the divine nature, the Godhead is wholly transcendent and unable to be comprehended.

This is expressed in St. Paul's letter to the Philippians, where he writes:

who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.[7]

The Holy Spirit is also expressed as an immanence of God.

and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."[8]

The immanence of the triune God is celebrated in the Catholic Church, traditional Protestant Churches, and Eastern Churches during the liturgical feast of the Theophany of God, known in Western Christianity as the Epiphany.

Pope Pius X wrote at length about philosophical-theological controversies over immanence in his encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis.

Mormonism

[edit]

According to Latter Day Saint theology, all of material creation is filled with immanence, known as the light of Christ. It is also responsible for the intuitive conscience born into man. The Light of Christ is the source of intellectual and spiritual enlightenment, and is the means by which God is in and through all things.[9] LDS scriptures identify the divine Light with the mind of God, the source of all truth and conveyor of the characteristics of the divine nature through God's goodness. The experienced brilliance of God reflects the “fullness” of this spirit within God's being.[10] Similarly, mankind can incorporate this spiritual light or divine mind and thus become one with God.[11] This immanent spirit of light bridges the scientific and spiritual conceptualizations of the universe.[12]

Judaism

[edit]
Main article: Tzimtzum

Traditional Jewish religious thought can be divided into Nigleh ("Revealed") and Nistar ("Hidden") dimensions. Hebrew Scripture is, in the Kabbalistic tradition, explained using the four level exegesis method of Pardes. In this system, the first three approaches, Simple, Hinted and Homiletical interpretations, characterise the revealed aspects. The fourth approach, the Secret meaning, characterises a hidden aspect. Among the classic texts of Jewish tradition, some Jewish Bible commentators, the Midrash, the Talmud, and mainstream Jewish philosophy use revealed approaches. Other Bible commentators, the Kabbalah, and Hasidic philosophy, use hidden approaches. Both dimensions are seen by adherents as united and complementary. In this way, ideas in Jewish thought are given a variety of ascending meanings. Explanations of a concept in Nigleh are given inherent, inner, mystical contexts from Nistar.

Descriptions of divine immanence can be seen in Nigleh, from the Bible to Rabbinic Judaism. In Genesis, God makes a personal covenant with the forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Daily Jewish prayers refer to this inherited closeness and personal relationship with the divine, for their descendants, as "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob". To Moses, God reveals his Tetragrammaton name, that more fully captures divine descriptions of transcendence. Each of the Biblical names for God describe different divine manifestations. The most important prayer in Judaism, that forms part of the Scriptural narrative to Moses, says "Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One." This declaration combines different divine names, and themes of immanence[citation needed] and transcendence. Perhaps the most personal example of a Jewish prayer that combines both themes is the invocation repeatedly voiced during the time in the Jewish calendar devoted to Teshuva (Return, often inaccurately translated as Repentance), Avinu Malkeinu ("Our Father, Our King"). Much of the later Hebrew Biblical narrative recounts the reciprocal relationship and national drama of the unfolding of themes of immanence and transcendence. Kabbalistic, or Hasidic Jewish thought and philosophy describe and articulate these interconnected aspects of the divine-human relationship.

Jewish mysticism gives explanations of greater depth and spirituality to the interconnected aspects of God's immanence and transcendence. The main expression of mysticism, the Kabbalah, began to be taught in 12th-Century Europe, and reached a new systemisation in 16th-Century Israel. The Kabbalah gives the full, subtle, traditional system of Jewish metaphysics. In the Medieval Kabbalah, new doctrines described the 10 Sephirot (divine emanations) through which the Infinite, unknowable divine essence reveals, emanates, and continuously creates existence. The Kabbalists identified the final, feminine Sefirah with the earlier, traditional Jewish concept of the Shekhinah (immanent divine presence). This gave great spirituality to earlier ideas in Jewish thought, such as the theological explanations of suffering (theodicy). In this example, the Kabbalists described the Shekhinah accompanying the children of Israel in their exile, being exiled alongside them, and yearning for Her redemption. Such a concept derives from the Kabbalistic theology that the physical World, and also the Upper spiritual Worlds, are continuously recreated from nothing by the Shefa (flow) of divine will, which emanates through the Sefirot. As a result, within all creations are divine sparks of vitality that sustain them. Medieval Kabbalah describes two forms of divine emanation, a "light that fills all worlds", representing this immanent divine creative power, and a "light that surrounds all worlds", representing transcendent expressions of Divinity.

The new doctrines of Isaac Luria in the 16th Century completed the Kabbalistic system of explanation. Lurianic Kabbalah describes the process of Tzimtzum (צמצום meaning "Contraction" or "Constriction") in the Kabbalistic theory of creation, where God "contracted" his infinite essence in order to allow for a "conceptual space" in which a finite, independent world could exist. This has received different later interpretations in Jewish mysticism, from the literal to the metaphorical. In this process, creation unfolds within the divine reality. Luria offered a daring cosmic theology that explained the reasons for the Tzimtzum, the primordial catastrophe of Shevirat Hakelim (the "Breaking of the Vessels" of the Sefirot in the first existence), and the messianic Tikkun ("Fixing") of this by every individual through their sanctification of physicality. The concept of Tzimtzum contains a built-in paradox, as it requires that God be simultaneously transcendent and immanent:

  • On the one hand, if the Infinite did not "restrict itself", then nothing could exist. There would be no limits, as the infinite essence of God, and also His primordial infinite light (Kabbalistic sources discuss God being able to reign alone, a revealed 'light' of the Sefirah of Kingship, "before" creation) would comprise all reality. Any existence would be nullified into the divine infinity. Therefore, we could not have the variety of limited, finite things that comprise the creations in the universe that we inhabit. (The number of such creations could still be potentially limitless, if the physical universe, or Multiverse had no end). Because each limited thing results from a restriction of God's completeness, God Himself must transcend (exist beyond) these various limited things. This idea can be interpreted in various ways. In its ultimate articulation, by the Hasidic leader Shneur Zalman of Liadi, in the intellectual Hasidic method of Chabad, the Tzimtzum is only metaphorical, an illusion from the perspective of man.[13] Creation is panentheistic (taking place fully "within God"), and acosmic (Illusionary) from the divine perspective. God himself, and even his light, is unrestricted by Tzimtzum, from God's perspective. The Tzimtzum is merely the hiding of this unchanged reality from creation. Shneur Zalman distinguishes between the "Upper Level Unity" of God's existence from the divine perspective, with the "Lower Level Unity" of God's existence as creation perceives him. Because God can be above logic, both perspectives of this paradox are true, from their alternative views. The dimension of the Tzimtzum, which implies divine transcendence, corresponds to the Upper Level Unity. In this perspective, because God is the true, ultimate infinity, then creation (even if its physical and spiritual realms should extend without limit) is completely nullified into literal non-existence by the divine. There is no change in the complete unity of God as all Reality, before or after creation. This is the ultimate level of divine transcendence.
  • On the other hand, in Lurianic Kabbalah, the Tzimtzum has an immanent divine dimension. The Tzimtzum formed a "space" (in Lurianic terminology, the Halal, "Vacuum") in which to allow creation to take place. The first act of creation was the emanation of a new light (Kav, "Ray") into the vacated space, from the ultimate divine reality "outside", or unaffected, by the space. The purpose of the Tzimtzum was that the vacated space allowed this new light to be suited to the needs and capacities of the new creations, without their being subsumed in the primordial divine infinity. Kabbalistic theology offers metaphysical explanations of how divine and spiritual processes unfold. In earlier, mainstream Jewish philosophy, logical descriptions of creation ex nihilo (from nothing) describe the new existence of creation, compared to the preceding absence. Kabbalah, however, seeks to explain how the spiritual, metaphysical processes unfold. Therefore, in the Kabbalistic system, God is the ultimate reality, so that creation only exists because it is continuously sustained by the will of God. Creation is formed from the emanated "light" of the divine Will, as it unfolds through the later Sefirot. The light that originated with the Kav later underwent further contractions that diminished it, so that this immanent expression of Divinity could itself create the various levels of Spiritual, and ultimately, Physical existence. The terms of "light" and temporal descriptions of time are metaphorical, in a language accessible to grasp. In this immanent divine dimension, God continuously maintains the existence of, and is thus not absent from, the created universe. In Shneur Zalman's explanation, this corresponds to the conscious perception by Creation of "Lower Level Unity" of God. In this perspective, Creation is real, and not an illusion, but is utterly nullified to the immanent divine life force that continuously sustains and recreates it. It may not perceive its complete dependence on Divinity, as in our present World, that feels its own existence as independent reality. However, this derives from the great concealments of Godliness in our present World. "The Divine life-force which brings all creatures into existence must constantly be present within them ... were this life-force to forsake any created being for even one brief moment, it would revert to a state of utter nothingness, as before the creation ...". (Tanya, Shaar Hayichud, Chapter 2–3. Shneur Zalman of Liadi).

Continental philosophy

[edit]

Giordano Bruno, Baruch Spinoza and possibly Hegel espoused philosophies of immanence versus philosophies of transcendence such as Thomism or Aristotelian tradition. Kant's "transcendental" critique can be contrasted to Hegel's "immanent dialectics."[14]

Thomas Carlyle's idea of "Natural Supernaturalism" posited the immanence of the divine in nature, history and man. Clement Charles Julian Webb explained that "Carlyle had done more than any other nineteenth-century writer to undermine belief in the transcendence of God and the origin of the material world in an act of creation in time, and to put in its place an 'essentially immanentist' theology, drawn largely from the writings of the German Idealists." Carlyle's "Natural Supernaturalism" was highly influential on American Transcendentalism and British Idealism.[15]

Giovanni Gentile's actual idealism, sometimes called "philosophy of immanence" and the metaphysics of the "I", "affirms the organic synthesis of dialectical opposites that are immanent within actual or present awareness".[16] His so-called method of immanence "attempted to avoid: (1) the postulate of an independently existing world or a Kantian Ding-an-sich (thing-in-itself), and (2) the tendency of neo-Hegelian philosophy to lose the particular self in an Absolute that amounts to a kind of mystical reality without distinctions."[16]

Political theorist Carl Schmitt used the term in his book Politische Theologie (1922), meaning a power within some thought, which makes it obvious for the people to accept it, without needing to claim being justified.[17] The immanence of some political system or a part of it comes from the reigning contemporary definer of Weltanschauung, namely religion (or any similar system of beliefs, such as rationalistic or relativistic world-view). Many hold Schmitt to be interested in an immanent polity without anything transcendent involved in its vital operations beyond the very border that separates it from the enemy outside. As such he might have ironically secularized politics in a way that liberalism never could have. But this is a contentious issue.[18]

The French 20th-century philosopher Gilles Deleuze used the term immanence to refer to his "empiricist philosophy", which was obliged to create action and results rather than establish transcendents. His final text was titled Pure Immanence: Essays on a Life and spoke of a plane of immanence.[19]

Furthermore, the Russian Formalist film theorists perceived immanence as a specific method of discussing the limits of ability for a technological object. Specifically, this is the scope of potential uses of an object outside of the limits prescribed by culture or convention, and is instead simply the empirical spectrum of function for a technological artifact.[20]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Immanence

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Immanence is a foundational concept in and referring to the intrinsic presence or indwelling of the divine, the absolute, or within the material world or all existence, such that it permeates and sustains creation from within rather than existing solely as an external or separate entity. This contrasts with transcendence, which emphasizes the divine's otherworldly separation and superiority over the , though many traditions balance both attributes to affirm God's active involvement in and over the . In theological contexts, immanence underscores divine omnipresence and intimate relation to creation, as seen in doctrines where God upholds the natural order through inherent sustaining power, avoiding the extremes of pantheism—which equates God fully with the world—or deism, which posits a distant creator. Philosophically, the concept gained prominence through Baruch Spinoza's metaphysics, where substance (or God/Nature) operates solely as an immanent cause, expressing itself eternally within modes of existence without external teleology or hierarchy. Later, Gilles Deleuze reframed immanence as a "plane" of pure potentiality and becoming, drawing on Spinoza to critique transcendent structures like representation and identity, positing instead a rhizomatic, non-hierarchical ontology of differential forces and virtual multiplicities. These formulations highlight immanence's role in challenging dualistic ontologies, influencing debates on , , and by prioritizing internal processes and affirmative over imposed norms or origins. While not tied to empirical controversies, its interpretations have shaped materialist philosophies resistant to interruptions, emphasizing causal chains grounded in the world's own productive capacities.

Conceptual Foundations

Definition and Etymology

Immanence refers to the philosophical and theological of inherent presence or indwelling, whereby a divine or fundamental reality exists within and permeates the boundaries of the world or system it inhabits, rather than existing externally or independently. In theological contexts, it describes God's active involvement and nearness to creation, emphasizing divine accessibility and relationality without conflating with the created order, as distinguished from . Philosophically, immanence underscores the self-sufficiency or internal origination of phenomena, where explanations or essences arise from within temporal or experiential limits, avoiding appeals to external transcendence. The term originates from the Late Latin immanēns, the present participle of immanēre, meaning "to remain in" or "to dwell within," derived from in- (in, within) and manēre (to stay, remain, or endure). This etymological root, traceable to influences in medieval , conveys permanence or containment without extension beyond the agent or domain, as articulated in early theological distinctions between internal vital actions and external operations. By the , the concept gained prominence in philosophical discourse, particularly through figures like Spinoza, who posited a single substance wherein and are immanently identical, influencing subsequent debates on versus in .

Relation to Transcendence

Immanence and transcendence represent a fundamental in philosophical and theological discussions of the divine or absolute. Transcendence denotes the quality of being wholly other, existing independently and superior to the created order, beyond spatial, temporal, or conceptual limitations. In contrast, immanence emphasizes the inherent presence and activity of the divine within the world, permeating its structures and processes without separation. This opposition highlights a tension: pure transcendence risks portraying the divine as remote and uninvolved, while unchecked immanence may dissolve distinctions between the sacred and profane, potentially leading to identifications of with the . In , as articulated in traditions like , the divine maintains both attributes without contradiction: God is transcendent as the uncaused cause and creator ex nihilo, yet immanent through sustaining existence in all things via primary causality. , for instance, argued in Summa Theologica (1265–1274) that God's essence is distinct from creation (transcendence) but effects are inseparable from creatures (immanence), preserving and . This balanced view counters radical immanence, as seen in Baruch Spinoza's Ethics (1677), where substance (Deus sive Natura) is entirely self-contained and immanent, rejecting any transcendent reality as illusory and attributing all modes to infinite necessity without external agency. Spinoza's equates divine and worldly substance, influencing later immanentist philosophies but criticized for undermining personal divine freedom and moral accountability. Philosophical phenomenology further delineates the relation, with positing immanence as intentional contents fully given within consciousness, while transcendence pertains to objects intended but not exhaustively intuited, bridging subjective experience and external reality. This framework underscores how immanence grounds immediate apprehension, yet requires transcendence for referential depth, avoiding . In modern continental thought, figures like radicalized immanence as a plane of pure virtuality and difference, explicitly sidelining transcendence as a repressive structure imposed on life's flows. Such positions, however, often provoke critiques for flattening ontological hierarchies, as evidenced in debates where immanent frames are seen to obscure irreducible otherness essential for ethical and metaphysical realism.

Historical Origins

Ancient Philosophical and Theological Roots

The concept of immanence, denoting the inherent presence of a unifying principle or divine force within the natural world rather than external to it, emerged in among the Pre-Socratics. of (c. 535–475 BCE) articulated an early form through his doctrine of the , a rational, fiery principle permeating and governing all cosmic flux and change, embodying unity amid apparent diversity without positing a separate transcendent realm. This immanent served as both the underlying structure of reality and the source of order, influencing later thinkers by emphasizing process and interconnection intrinsic to matter itself. Stoic philosophy, founded by around 300 BCE, systematized immanence by identifying the divine as an active, material (breath or spirit) thoroughly infused throughout the universe, acting as its rational soul and providential guide. Unlike Platonic forms existing in a transcendent ideal realm, Stoic cosmology viewed god—equated with and the —as corporeal and coextensive with the physical , sustaining it from within through tension and mixture with passive matter. This pantheistic framework, drawing directly from Heraclitean flux and periodic , rejected dualistic separations between deity and world, positing instead a self-regulating whole where divine reason manifests immanently in natural laws and human virtue. In theological contexts, ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean traditions exhibited proto-immanentist elements, such as the Mesopotamian view of deities as vital forces embedded in natural phenomena and city-states, though often blended with anthropomorphic transcendence. Egyptian theology similarly integrated divine ka and ba as immanent life-principles animating pharaohs and cosmos, with gods like Amun-Ra pervading creation without full detachment. These ideas paralleled Greek developments, where immanence arose alongside speculation on the world's internal causation, predating explicit transcendence-immanence dichotomies in later Abrahamic thought. However, such early theological immanence remained embedded in polytheistic systems, lacking the monistic rationalism of Stoic philosophy.

Medieval Developments

In the , the Irish theologian and philosopher (c. 810–c. 877) contributed significantly to immanentist thought through his Periphyseon (c. 862–866), a synthesis of and that depicted creation as a theophania, or divine manifestation, wherein God unfolds immanently within all things as their underlying essence while remaining transcendent beyond them. Eriugena divided nature (natura) into four categories—uncreated and creating (God as source), created and creating (primordial causes), created and not creating (sensible world), and uncreated and not creating (God's return to unity)—portraying the as a dynamic procession (processio) and return (reditus) of the divine, with immanence evident in God's self-expression through creatures as participatory effects. This framework, influenced by Pseudo-Dionysius and , balanced immanence against transcendence but risked pantheistic interpretations, leading to papal condemnation of the work in 1215 and 1225 for blurring divine-human distinctions. During the , scholastic theologians like (1225–1274) addressed immanence within an Aristotelian framework, affirming God's intimate presence in creatures through act of existence (esse), which sustains all beings as participated effects of the divine essence, yet subordinated this to transcendence to preserve God's and otherness from the composite material world. Aquinas's doctrine of analogy ensured that divine immanence did not equate God with creation, distinguishing essential participation from univocal identity, as seen in his (1265–1274), where God is both the efficient cause immanent in effects and transcendent as pure act unmixed with potency. This approach contrasted with more radical immanentism, reflecting scholastic efforts to reconcile biblical transcendence (e.g., Exodus 3:14) with philosophical amid debates over . In the , Dominican mystic (c. 1260–c. 1328) pushed immanence further in his German sermons and Latin treatises, asserting that the divine essence is indistinct from the soul's ground (grunt), where God births the Son eternally within the intellect, rendering the just soul a "citadel" of uncreated divinity more intimate than itself. Eckhart's emphasized God's "boiling over" (ebullitio) into creation as a flow of being without diminishing transcendence, distinguishing divine indistinction (indifferentia) from creaturely identity to avoid , though his language of "" (gotheit) as abyssal nothingness provoked charges in 1329 for implying divine absorption into creatures. These developments, amid rising , highlighted tensions between immanent union and orthodox transcendence, influencing later contemplative traditions while facing institutional scrutiny for potential doctrinal overreach.

Immanence in Religious Traditions

Hinduism

In , Brahman represents the ultimate reality that exemplifies divine immanence, permeating all forms of existence as their essential substratum while remaining identical with the individual self (Atman). This conception posits Brahman not as a distant creator but as the indwelling consciousness animating the universe, where every phenomenon— from atoms to cosmic structures—manifests its presence without separation. Vedantic traditions, drawing from ancient texts, emphasize this indwelling quality, rejecting dualistic separations between the divine and the material. The , foundational scriptures composed between approximately 800 and 200 BCE, articulate Brahman's immanence through declarations of non-duality, such as the 's assertion that Brahman is the inner controller (antaryamin) residing in the hearts of all beings, sustaining life and awareness from within. In , systematized by Adi in the 8th century CE, this immanence reaches its philosophical apex: the world (maya) appears as diverse due to ignorance (), but realization reveals Brahman as the sole , equally present in the microcosm of the and the macrocosm of creation. This view contrasts with purely transcendent models by integrating the divine into empirical experience, enabling practices like on the to access it directly. The , dated to around 200 BCE–200 CE, further illustrates immanence through Krishna's self-description as pervading all entities: "With a single fragment of Myself I have pervaded this entire " (Gita 10.42), underscoring 's role as the efficient and material cause of reality. This pervasive presence informs Hindu rituals and ethics, where recognizing divinity in everyday objects and persons fosters non-violence () and unity. While some devotional () traditions emphasize personal deities as immanent manifestations of , the core Vedantic framework maintains its impersonal, all-encompassing nature, balancing immanence with transcendence to avoid pantheistic conflation of the absolute with transient forms.

Buddhism

In Buddhism, the concept of immanence manifests primarily through doctrines emphasizing the inherent potential for enlightenment within the phenomenal world, without reliance on a transcendent or separate absolute realm. Unlike theistic traditions positing a divine essence external to creation, Buddhist teachings, originating from Siddhartha Gautama's insights around the 5th century BCE, stress pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination), wherein all phenomena arise interdependently within samsara, rendering accessible through direct experiential realization rather than otherworldly transcendence. This immanent orientation aligns with the core tenet of anātman (no-self), which denies permanent substances while affirming the transformative potential embedded in transient processes. Mahayana , developing from the 1st century CE onward, introduces tathāgatagarbha ( or embryo of the thus-gone one), portraying an innate, luminous essence pervading all sentient beings, akin to an "immanent absolute" that underlies defiled phenomena yet remains obscured by ignorance and karma. This doctrine, articulated in sutras such as the (circa 3rd century CE), posits that is not acquired externally but uncovered immanently, as every being possesses the seed of awakening, challenging early interpretations of nirvana as purely transcendent cessation. In and Tathāgatagarbha traditions, this immanence reconciles with (emptiness), where phenomena lack independent essence but manifest the (truth body) intrinsically, enabling realization within worldly conditions. Theravada Buddhism, rooted in the Pali Canon compiled around the 1st century BCE, exhibits a more restrained immanence, focusing on the Eightfold Path as a practical discipline yielding nibbāna (nirvana) through insight into impermanence (anicca), suffering (dukkha), and no-self, without invoking indwelling essences. Here, liberation emerges from immanent ethical and meditative praxis, dissolving attachments in the present flux of experience, though nirvana is often described as unconditioned and beyond samsaric description, blurring strict immanence-transcendence binaries. East Asian developments, such as in Chan/Zen (from the 6th century CE), further emphasize immanent sudden awakening (satori), as in Dōgen's (1200–1253) assertion that impermanence itself constitutes Buddha-nature, urging practitioners to authenticate enlightenment in everyday phenomena like mountains and rivers. Scholars note hermeneutic tensions: tathāgatagarbha's immanent absolute risks resembling ātman (eternal self) repudiated in foundational texts, prompting interpretive efforts to align it with as non-substantive potentiality rather than ontological substance. Empirical analyses of meditative states corroborate this, with phenomenological reports of boundless arising within sensory fields, supporting causal claims of immanent transformation via vipassanā () practices documented in texts like the (5th century CE). Overall, Buddhist immanence prioritizes causal efficacy in dismantling through worldly engagement, eschewing dualistic separations for a unified field of interdependent arising.

Judaism

In Jewish theology, divine immanence denotes God's pervasive presence within the created world, coexisting with transcendence as articulated in core texts like the , which portrays as the sovereign creator beyond material bounds yet actively intervening in history, such as through the pillar of cloud and fire guiding the (Exodus 13:21-22). This duality avoids by maintaining God's ontological distinction from creation while affirming relational involvement, as seen in prophetic encounters where divine speech and visions occur within physical locales (e.g., Isaiah 6:1-3). The concept gains depth in through Shekhinah, denoting the immanent divine indwelling or "presence," often depicted as exiled alongside Israel post-Temple destruction in 70 CE, symbolizing God's solidarity in suffering rather than withdrawal. Talmudic sources, such as Berakhot 7a, describe the accompanying the righteous in daily life and prayer, emphasizing ethical conduct as a conduit for this presence, though medieval philosophers like prioritized transcendence to counter anthropomorphic excesses. Kabbalistic thought, emerging in 12th-13th century Provence and Spain, systematizes immanence via Ein Sof—the infinite, transcendent essence beyond comprehension—and the ten sefirot, dynamic emanations mediating divine influx into reality. The doctrine of tzimtzum, or divine contraction articulated in 16th-century Lurianic Kabbalah, posits God withdrawing light to form a conceptual "void" enabling finite creation, thus preserving transcendence while infusing immanence through subsequent emanation, as the sefirot structure cosmic and human orders without equating God with matter. This framework influenced Hasidic Judaism from the 18th century, where immanence manifests in devekut (cleaving to God) via contemplative practice, balancing mystical union with halakhic observance.

Christianity

In , divine immanence denotes 's pervasive presence and sustaining activity within creation, whereby he upholds the through his providential power while maintaining distinction from it, avoiding conflation with . This attribute complements divine transcendence, ensuring is neither remote nor identical to the cosmos. Biblical texts underscore this, as in Colossians 1:17, which states that "in him all things hold together," and Hebrews 1:3, portraying Christ as upholding the by the word of his power. The anticipates immanence through 's dwelling among , such as in the (Exodus 25:8, where declares, "Let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst") and the Shekinah glory in the temple, symbolizing his localized yet active presence. In the , the represents the pinnacle of immanence, with :14 affirming that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us," enabling direct divine-human communion. The indwelling of the further manifests this, as promised in John 14:16-17 and realized at (:1-4), where believers experience God's internal guidance and empowerment. Doctrinally, early church councils like (325 CE) integrated immanence by affirming Christ's full divinity and humanity, preserving God's involvement without compromising otherness. Medieval scholastics, including in Summa Theologica (I, q. 8, a. 1), articulated God's immanence via three modes—essence (pervading all being), presence (knowing all things intimately), and power (governing creation)—rooted in scriptural rather than philosophical abstraction alone. Reformation thinkers like echoed this in (1.16.3), emphasizing God's "ubiquity" as intimate involvement without spatial limitation. Modern continues to balance both attributes, critiquing liberal tendencies toward immanentist reductions that eclipse transcendence, as seen in 19th-20th century Protestant .

Islam

In Islamic , the concept of divine immanence, known as tashbīh, refers to the affirmation of God's attributes and presence within creation, balanced against tanzīh, the declaration of God's absolute transcendence beyond human likeness or limitation. This duality ensures tawḥīd (God's oneness) by avoiding while recognizing God's active involvement in the , as articulated in classical texts where tashbīh underscores divine in qualities like and power without implying or spatial confinement. The Qurʾān provides foundational support for immanence, describing as "the First and the Last, the Evident and the Immanent" (Qurʾān 57:3), emphasizing His manifest presence alongside eternity. Further, it states that God is "closer to [man] than [his] jugular vein" (Qurʾān 50:16), illustrating intimate proximity without compromising otherness, a theme echoed in verses like 25:58 and 49:53 that affirm God's sustaining role in all . These passages reject pure transcendence that distances God from creation, integrating tashbīh to affirm His evident attributes in the observable world. Theologians like Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī (d. 1111 CE) advanced immanence through Ashʿarite occasionalism, positing that natural causation is illusory and every event requires God's direct, moment-by-moment intervention to uphold . In works such as Iḥyāʾ ʿUlūm al-Dīn, al-Ghazālī argued that God's will permeates creation continuously, rendering the divine both transcendent in essence and immanent in action, countering philosophers who posited independent secondary causes. This framework safeguards tawḥīd by attributing all phenomena to God's habitual patterns rather than autonomous laws, though critics noted it risked blurring transcendence if overemphasized. Sufi mysticism intensified immanent interpretations, particularly via Muḥyī al-Dīn Ibn ʿArabī (d. 1240 CE) and his doctrine of waḥdat al-wujūd (unity of being), which posits existence as a singular manifesting God's essence without multiplicity in ultimate . Ibn ʿArabī maintained balance by affirming God's transcendence (tanzīh) as the hidden and immanence (tashbīh) as visible manifestations in creation, drawing from Qurʾānic and ḥadīth sources to describe the as divine self-disclosure (tajallī). Orthodox scholars, including Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 1328 CE), critiqued waḥdat al-wujūd for potential pantheistic leanings that dilute transcendence, insisting immanence must not equate creator with created. Despite such debates, Sufi practices like (remembrance) cultivate experiential awareness of divine nearness, influencing traditions across Sunni and Shia contexts.

Philosophical Interpretations

Spinoza and Early Modern Pantheism

(1632–1677), a Dutch philosopher of Portuguese-Jewish descent, developed a metaphysical system in his (published posthumously in 1677) that equated with the totality of , formulating an immanentist ontology central to early modern . In this framework, Spinoza posited a single infinite substance— or (Deus sive Natura)—possessing attributes such as thought and extension, from which all particular things arise as modes. This substance exists necessarily and eternally, with no distinction between creator and creation, rendering divine causality strictly immanent rather than transcendent. Spinoza explicitly argued that "God is the immanent, not the transitive, cause of all things," meaning that the effects of divine power remain within /Nature itself, without external projection or separation. Traditional conceptions of a personal, transcendent deity intervening in the world were rejected as anthropomorphic illusions; instead, the operates through deterministic necessity governed by God's infinite essence. This view dissolved dualisms like mind-body or finite-infinite, positing that human understanding achieves adequacy by aligning intellect with the eternal structure of , fostering intellectual love of (amor Dei intellectualis). Spinoza's system, while not self-labeled pantheism—a term coined later—exemplifies early modern by identifying the divine with the world's immanent order, influencing radical Enlightenment thought amid suppression by religious authorities. Excommunicated from Amsterdam's Jewish community in 1656 for heretical views, his works faced bans from Christian institutions, yet they circulated clandestinely, challenging Cartesian dualism and scholastic transcendence. Critics like accused him of , but proponents discerned a rigorous wherein immanence unifies and existence without supernaturalism. This pantheistic marked a causal realist pivot, grounding and in the self-sustaining laws of rather than revealed dogma.

Nineteenth-Century Idealism

In nineteenth-century , the concept of immanence gained prominence through the absolute idealist philosophies of and , who reconceived the divine or Absolute as inherently realized within nature, history, and human consciousness rather than as a remote transcendent entity. This shift built on Johann Gottlieb Fichte's (1762–1814) , which posited the infinite ego as the originating principle of reality in his Wissenschaftslehre (1794–1795), but Fichte's framework retained a more anthropocentric and less cosmically immanent orientation. Schelling and Hegel, during their collaborative period (1801–1803), explicitly advocated a metaphysical understanding of as immanent, rejecting reductions to mere moral order or subjective will, and emphasizing the Absolute's self-unfolding within the world's dynamic processes. Schelling's , developed in works like Ideas for a Philosophy of Nature (1797), portrayed nature as the visible, unconscious productivity of the Absolute, where organic forms embody an immanent unity of and necessity, bridging the gap between mechanism and without external causation. In his philosophy of identity, articulated in System of (1800), Schelling argued that subject and object, and nature, coincide in an eternal act of self-positing, rendering the divine immanent as the productive ground of all phenomena rather than a separate creator. This immanence extended to human , which Schelling later framed in his Philosophy of Revelation (circa 1809–1820s) as the point where cosmic immanence confronts contingency, allowing transcendence to return to and perfect its indwelling in the finite world. Hegel's system culminated this immanentist trajectory in his conception of Absolute Spirit (), the self-determining totality that actualizes itself dialectically through , , religion, and philosophy, as outlined in Phenomenology of Spirit (1807) and Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences (1817, revised 1827, 1830). For Hegel, the Absolute is not static or otherworldly but immanently present in the rational structure of reality, progressing via contradictions resolved in higher syntheses—such as the transition from subjective spirit (individual consciousness) to objective spirit (social institutions) and finally absolute spirit (self-knowing universality). This dialectical immanence posits that or the divine realizes freedom only through worldly mediation, with as the theater of the Absolute's self-revelation, obviating dualistic separations between infinite and finite. Hegel's framework thus integrated theological immanence into a monistic ontology, where apparent transcendence dissolves into the comprehensive logic of becoming.

Twentieth-Century Continental Thought

In twentieth-century , immanence emerged as a central theme in phenomenological inquiries into and embodiment, evolving toward more radical formulations in post-structuralist thought. , in (1927), reframed human existence () as inherently ecstatic transcendence within the immanence of worldly concern, critiquing traditional metaphysics for separating being from beings while emphasizing Being's disclosure in everyday practices rather than a detached transcendence. This approach marked a shift from Husserlian , where immanence denotes the immediate givenness of phenomena in , toward an ontological immanence embedded in historical and temporal finitude. Maurice Merleau-Ponty extended this trajectory in Phenomenology of Perception (1945), positing the body as the primordial site of immanence, where perception intertwines subject and world in a pre-reflective chiasm, rejecting dualistic separations of mind and matter. In his unfinished The Visible and the Invisible (published 1964), Merleau-Ponty introduced the concept of "flesh" to describe a reversible immanence uniting seer and seen, grounding ontology in elemental intertwining rather than subjective idealism. This embodied immanence influenced later critiques of phenomenology, though it retained traces of transcendence in its reliance on perceptual faith. Gilles Deleuze radicalized immanence in late-century thought, constructing a metaphysics of the "plane of immanence" as a virtual, pre-individual field of intensive differences and becomings, free from transcendent structures like the subject or God. In Difference and Repetition (1968) and with Félix Guattari in What Is Philosophy? (1991), Deleuze drew on Spinoza to define this plane as the absolute milieu for concept-creation, where univocity of being ensures immanence's purity against representational hierarchies. Deleuze explicitly positioned his philosophy against phenomenological immanence, arguing it fails to escape transcendent forms of consciousness, favoring instead affirmative, nomadic processes of life as pure immanence. This framework influenced subsequent continental debates on vitalism and materialism, emphasizing immanence's generative power over static essences.

Criticisms and Contemporary Debates

Theological Objections

In , objections to immanence center on its potential to erode the creator-creation distinction when divorced from transcendence, fostering or that identifies with the world and diminishes divine holiness. Theologians argue this conflation undermines key doctrines, such as as alienation from a transcendent God and redemption through Christ's atoning work, reducing divine judgment to mere worldly processes. For example, Reformed and evangelical critiques highlight that unchecked immanence portrays as inherent in all things without distinction, leading to a loss of and accountability, as seen in liberal theologies that prioritize experiential presence over revelatory otherness. Karl Barth's dialectical theology exemplifies this critique, rejecting immanentist —which posits God's accessibility through human reason or creation alone—as presumptuous and compromising divine freedom. Barth insisted that true knowledge of God arises solely from God's self-revelation in Christ, not from any inherent within humanity or nature, warning that immanence-based approaches inevitably domesticate the divine to human categories. This stance, developed in his (1932–1967), counters 19th- and early 20th-century liberal Protestantism's emphasis on divine indwelling, which Barth viewed as anthropocentric and vulnerable to . Islamic theology raises parallel concerns, prioritizing tanzih (divine transcendence and incomparability) over tashbih (divine similarity or immanence) to avoid shirk, the unforgivable sin of associating partners with Allah by blurring His absolute otherness. Orthodox Sunni scholars, drawing from Quranic verses like Surah Al-Ikhlas (112:1–4) affirming Allah's uniqueness beyond creation, critique excessive immanence—as in some Sufi interpretations of wahdat al-wujud (unity of being)—for risking incarnationist or pantheistic errors that embed the divine in material forms. This safeguards tawhid (divine unity) against any suggestion that God is contained within or dependent on the cosmos. Judaism echoes these reservations, with rabbinic tradition emphasizing God's transcendence in texts like Exodus 33:20, where divine essence remains veiled to preserve against immanentist . (1138–1204), in Guide for the Perplexed, argued that attributing immanence to anthropomorphizes the infinite, leading to erroneous corporeal conceptions and undermining covenantal relationship predicated on divine distance.

Philosophical Limitations

Philosophers of immanence, such as , emphasize a plane of pure immanence where being unfolds without recourse to transcendent principles, yet this approach encounters significant challenges. By positing thought as fully expressive of being absent any transcendent moment, immanence risks a static ontology that struggles to generate dynamic genesis or genuine novelty, as critiqued in analyses of Deleuze's reliance on Spinozist attributes without Hegelian dialectical progression. Such flatness undermines hierarchical structures evident in empirical observations of complex systems, where emergent properties suggest causal dependencies not reducible to horizontal relations alone. Epistemologically, pure immanence induces instability, as Deleuze himself notes a "vertigo" arising from ideas conceived as non-experienceable problems rather than stable representations. This framework lacks a self-validating , presupposing pre-philosophical intuitions that evade rigorous justification, thereby complicating claims to objective beyond immanent flux. Speculative realists further contend that immanent philosophies, particularly correlationist variants tying being to human thought, fail to access the absolute real independent of subjective , confining inquiry to anthropocentric limits and obstructing metaphysical realism. Ethically, immanence falters in addressing demands requiring transcendence, such as infinite responsibility to the Other, which impose absolute imperatives that paralyze action within an immanent field of capacities and powers. Critics argue this engenders either relativistic chaos, lacking transcendent moral grounding, or practical impotence when confronted with ethical absolutes, as transcendence disrupts immanence's univocal . These limitations highlight immanence's tension with causal realism, where ultimate explanations demand tracing effects to origins potentially beyond the immanent domain, a gap unbridgeable without invoking stratified realities.

Societal and Ethical Implications

Immanent , as articulated by anthropologists and philosophers such as Michael Lambek, conceive morality as intrinsic to and everyday practices, rather than as a detachable set of transcendent rules or codes imposed from external authorities. This view holds that ethical capacities emerge from within human interrelations and cultural forms, making a constitutive feature of social life that cannot be abstracted without distorting its role in guiding conduct. In contrast to moral systems reliant on divine or universal imperatives, immanent approaches emphasize responsive, context-bound judgment, where individuals cultivate virtues through reflection on their embedded relations, potentially fostering adaptive ethical frameworks in diverse societies. Philosophers influenced by Spinoza and Deleuze extend this to a vitalist focused on enhancing life's capacities, where moral evaluation shifts from obedience to transcendent norms toward experimental modes of existence that increase joy and potency ( in Spinoza's terms). Societally, this immanence-oriented promotes transindividual processes, viewing collectives as dynamic assemblages rather than hierarchical structures bound by abstract ideals, which can underpin egalitarian emphasizing mutual augmentation over domination. For instance, Deleuze's inversion of moral judgment into ethical experimentation critiques power relations that alienate individuals from their affective potentials, advocating societal arrangements that resist "" by affirming immanent life forces over reductive control mechanisms. Ethically, immanence challenges absolutist moralities by grounding value in and relational dynamics, which proponents argue enables a realism attuned to causal contingencies without illusory appeals to the beyond, though it risks if ethical discernment lacks robust evaluative criteria derived from empirical flourishing. In contemporary debates, this has implications for and , where immanent perspectives prioritize intrinsic ecological interconnections—echoing pantheist traditions—over anthropocentric transcendence, influencing movements that treat nature as ethically continuous with human agency rather than a subordinated to divine . Such views, however, demand vigilant self-critique to avoid conflating descriptive immanence with prescriptive norms, as ethical life remains negotiated amid power asymmetries inherent to social immanence itself.

References

  1. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/divine-transcendence-immanence/
  2. https://clearcreekresources.org/2020/12/08/the-immanence-and-transcendence-of-god/
  3. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1080&context=englishdiss
  4. https://philarchive.org/archive/STEDAS-7
  5. https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3366/dlgs.2019.0376
  6. https://read.dukeupress.edu/qui-parle/article/30/1/51/173813/An-Immanence-without-the-WorldOn-Dispossession
  7. https://anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ap2501/2501barber/
  8. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/immanence
  9. https://www.gotquestions.org/immanence-of-God.html
  10. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immanent
  11. https://www.etymonline.com/word/immanent
  12. https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=immanence
  13. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07682a.htm
  14. https://www.gcu.edu/blog/theology-ministry/theology-thursday-transcendence
  15. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/
  16. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1146&context=lts_fac_pubs
  17. https://dermotmoran.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/A_2008_Immanence-Self-Experience-Transcendence.pdf
  18. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119009924.eopr0179
  19. https://philarchive.org/archive/DOWIAT
  20. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heraclitus/
  21. http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:406664/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  22. https://socratesjourney.org/logos-from-heraclitus-to-the-stoics-stoicism/
  23. https://medium.com/stoicism-philosophy-as-a-way-of-life/heraclitus-the-pre-stoic-philosopher-who-inspired-marcus-aurelius-89c8e4312936
  24. https://ceres.rub.de/en/research/projects/divine_transcendence_immanence_antiquity/
  25. https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/immanence
  26. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scottus-eriugena/
  27. https://philarchive.org/archive/HAMTAI
  28. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/meister-eckhart/
  29. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20465726.2023.2268461
  30. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11841-024-01046-6
  31. https://www.vedantany.org/articles/blog-post-title-two-6txr3
  32. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383276784_Divine_Immanence_and_Pantheistic_Thought_Across_Religions_A_Comparative_Exploration_from_Christianity_to_Eastern_Philosophies
  33. https://digitalcommons.butler.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1434&context=jhcs
  34. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11841-024-01036-8
  35. https://www.academia.edu/43310494/An_Ultimate_from_Immanence_Lotus_Buddhism_Redefined_for_a_Secular_Worldview
  36. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1398828
  37. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/12/12/1081
  38. https://www.buddhistinquiry.org/article/the-context-of-impermanence/
  39. https://www.academia.edu/4653061/Ultimate_Reality_Is_Immanence
  40. https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/ojs.cais-acsi.ca/index.php/cais-asci/article/download/1006/898/1038
  41. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306313372_Gilles_Deleuze_and_Daisaku_Ikeda_Between_immanence_and_Buddha-nature
  42. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-history-of-jewish-philosophy/god-divine-immanence/66C941FD730C319A4C4F3AAC46793A70
  43. https://brill.com/view/journals/jjtp/3/2/article-p249_3.xml
  44. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-divine-feminine-in-kabbalah-an-example-of-jewish-renewal/
  45. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ein-sof
  46. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/361885/jewish/The-Sefirot.htm
  47. https://chrishefner.org/2021/09/17/word-of-the-week-immanence/
  48. https://equipthecalled.com/at-article/defining-immanence-through-the-lens-of-gods-transcendence/
  49. https://dbts.edu/2022/12/16/the-eclipse-of-divine-transcendence-a-historical-concern-for-the-christmas-season/
  50. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/abstract/document/obo-9780195390155/obo-9780195390155-0251.xml
  51. https://iranianstudies.org/transcendent_philosophy/volume-25-number-36/ibn-arabi-and-transcendence-and-simile
  52. https://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=57&verse=3
  53. https://al-islam.org/quran/surah/25/al-furqaan/ayat/58/reference/39559
  54. https://islamonline.net/en/allah-both-transcendent-and-immanent-2/
  55. https://www.ghazali.org/articles/kamali.htm
  56. https://www.ghazali.org/books/abu-zayd.pdf
  57. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ibn-arabi/
  58. https://ibnarabisociety.org/oneness-of-being-wahdat-al-wujud-aladdin-bakri/
  59. https://www.zwemercenter.com/zwemer-podcasts/dr-peter-riddell-lecture-sufisms-concepts-of-divine-immanence-and-transcendence/
  60. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/
  61. https://iep.utm.edu/spinoza/
  62. https://iep.utm.edu/germidea/
  63. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/sjp.12474
  64. https://www.routledge.com/Schelling-Freedom-and-the-Immanent-Made-Transcendent-From-Philosophy-of-Nature-to-Environmental-Ethics/Fulvi/p/book/9781032351551
  65. https://philpapers.org/rec/BUBIIS
  66. https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9781000962024_A46744635/preview-9781000962024_A46744635.pdf
  67. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/hegels-philosophy-of-spirit/absoluteness-of-hegels-absolute-spirit/78137F3A3991015A1E60559580D7AE8D
  68. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejop.70015
  69. https://dermotmoran.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Moran_What_Does_Heidegger_Mean_IJPS_2014_copy-libre.pdf
  70. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/merleau-ponty/
  71. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/deleuze/
  72. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00071773.2006.11006589
  73. https://billmuehlenberg.com/2013/08/05/on-gods-immanence-and-transcendence/
  74. https://www.sdmorrison.org/review-beyond-immanence-by-alan-j-torrance-and-andrew-b-torrance/
  75. https://firstthings.com/karl-barths-failure/
  76. https://islamicate.com/2004/04/15/immanence_trans/
  77. https://www.reviewofreligions.org/14237/two-types-of-divine-attributes-immanent-and-transcendent/
  78. https://www.radicalphilosophy.com/article/the-vertigo-of-philosophy
  79. https://crln.acrl.org/index.php/crlnews/article/view/8388/8564
  80. https://philarchive.org/archive/SMIDAD-6
  81. https://www.bu.edu/cura/files/2013/10/Lambek-Immanence-of-Ethics-10-1311.pdf
  82. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1463499619836328
  83. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/698269
  84. https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/131896/1/jernej_markelj_final_thesis.pdf
  85. https://www.uni-hildesheim.de/media/fb2/philosophie/Mitarbeiter_innen/Deutschmann/Immanence_Transindividuality_and_the_Fre__1_.pdf
  86. https://academic.oup.com/fordham-scholarship-online/book/18454
  87. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33890839/
  88. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14409917.2017.1376939
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.