Theodicy as God's portraiture

Miłosz Puczydłowski
{"title":"Theodicy as God's portraiture","authors":"Miłosz Puczydłowski","doi":"10.21697/2019.55.1.02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":". The aim of this paper is to examine one of the best known and most frequently disapproved philosophical ideas: namely, theodicy. Some classical arguments formulated by Plotinus, Augustine, and Leibniz are examined. Then, Kant’s harsh critique of theodicy is introduced. The main aim of our suggested reinterpretation of the classical debate is to employ a new definition of evil formulated by Richard Kearney. Having considered evil as ‘something that must be actively contested ’, the theodicean reasoning should be reimagined. The paper will advance from the rational vindication of God’s goodness and justice to the portraiture of God’s active contestation of evil. The metaphysical thought of Plotinus, Augustine and Leibniz is to be redirected from its past orientation towards a fu ture disposition. The Kantian idea of an authentic theodicy based on the Book of Job will also be introduced. This will allows us to steer firmly between the Scylla of a metaphysical overlooking of individual suffering and the Charybdis of disregarding God when facing evil.","PeriodicalId":21980,"journal":{"name":"Studia Philosophiae Christianae","volume":"118 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Philosophiae Christianae","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21697/2019.55.1.02","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

. The aim of this paper is to examine one of the best known and most frequently disapproved philosophical ideas: namely, theodicy. Some classical arguments formulated by Plotinus, Augustine, and Leibniz are examined. Then, Kant’s harsh critique of theodicy is introduced. The main aim of our suggested reinterpretation of the classical debate is to employ a new definition of evil formulated by Richard Kearney. Having considered evil as ‘something that must be actively contested ’, the theodicean reasoning should be reimagined. The paper will advance from the rational vindication of God’s goodness and justice to the portraiture of God’s active contestation of evil. The metaphysical thought of Plotinus, Augustine and Leibniz is to be redirected from its past orientation towards a fu ture disposition. The Kantian idea of an authentic theodicy based on the Book of Job will also be introduced. This will allows us to steer firmly between the Scylla of a metaphysical overlooking of individual suffering and the Charybdis of disregarding God when facing evil.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
神正论是上帝的肖像
. 本文的目的是研究一个最著名的和最经常不被认可的哲学思想:即,神正论。一些由普罗提诺、奥古斯丁和莱布尼茨提出的经典论点被检验。接着,介绍了康德对神正论的严厉批判。我们建议重新解释经典辩论的主要目的是采用Richard Kearney对邪恶的新定义。考虑到邪恶是“必须积极对抗的东西”,狄奥底西亚的推理应该重新想象。本文将从上帝的善良和正义的理性辩护推进到上帝积极对抗邪恶的肖像。普罗提诺、奥古斯丁和莱布尼茨的形而上学思想要从过去的方向转向未来的方向。基于《约伯记》的康德的真实神正论思想也将被介绍。这将使我们能够在形而上学地忽视个人痛苦的“锡拉”和面对邪恶时无视上帝的“卡律布底斯”之间牢牢地把握方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Retrospektywna i prospektywna rola ekofilozofii Bruno Latour: New Challenges and Inspirations in Political Ecology Toward Environmental Citizenship: The Concept of Citizenship and Its Conceptualization in the Context of Global Environmental Challenges Industrial and Environmental Democracies as Models of a Politically Organized Relationship Between Society and Nature Machiavelli’s The Prince: How to Refute Virtue Ethics in Three Steps
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1