This article analyses the parallels between the pre-Qin Daoist notion of heng 恒 as a constancy that is nevertheless ceaselessly in motion, and Karl Barth’s concept of Beständigkeit as God’s constancy throughout infinite transformation. Underlying both concepts is an understanding of the ultimate origin (whether dao 道or the Christian God) as irreducibly temporal in nature. Stemming from this conviction, both systems of thought ultimately identify the continuous change of the ultimate origin with the flow of time in the universe. The commonalities found between these two traditions provide fresh resources to advance the study of both. On the one hand, Barth’s deliberate juxtaposition of contrary statements to illustrate the union of permanence and transience in Beständigkeit challenges the frequent assumption that similar juxtapositions in the pre-Qin texts comprise careless inconsistency or outright incoherence. By extension, Barth’s metaphysical underpinning of this juxtaposition offers a compelling framework to explicate the Daoist notion of heng. On the other hand, the pre-Qin texts’ confluence of permanence and freedom in the principle of ziran 自然 offers a new lens through which to read and hence redeem Barth’s oft-critiqued attempt to combine the irrevocability and ongoing freedom of God’s decision of election.
{"title":"Transformative Repetitions","authors":"Alexander Garton-Eisenacher","doi":"10.1515/nzsth-2023-0070","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/nzsth-2023-0070","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article analyses the parallels between the pre-Qin Daoist notion of heng 恒 as a constancy that is nevertheless ceaselessly in motion, and Karl Barth’s concept of Beständigkeit as God’s constancy throughout infinite transformation. Underlying both concepts is an understanding of the ultimate origin (whether dao 道or the Christian God) as irreducibly temporal in nature. Stemming from this conviction, both systems of thought ultimately identify the continuous change of the ultimate origin with the flow of time in the universe. The commonalities found between these two traditions provide fresh resources to advance the study of both. On the one hand, Barth’s deliberate juxtaposition of contrary statements to illustrate the union of permanence and transience in Beständigkeit challenges the frequent assumption that similar juxtapositions in the pre-Qin texts comprise careless inconsistency or outright incoherence. By extension, Barth’s metaphysical underpinning of this juxtaposition offers a compelling framework to explicate the Daoist notion of heng. On the other hand, the pre-Qin texts’ confluence of permanence and freedom in the principle of ziran 自然 offers a new lens through which to read and hence redeem Barth’s oft-critiqued attempt to combine the irrevocability and ongoing freedom of God’s decision of election.","PeriodicalId":507522,"journal":{"name":"Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie","volume":" June","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140682543","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Die Rezension behandelt George Pattisons Phänomenologie eines christlichen, a-spirierten Leben im ersten Band seiner dreibändig angelegten Philosophy of Christian Life. Dabei wird insbesondere Folgendes fokussiert: Die Art, wie Pattison die von Franz von Sales entlehnte Person der Philothea als Figuration frommen Lebens nutzt; die Frage nach der Möglichkeit von a-spirierten Leben in institutionellen Machtstrukturen und die medio-passive Konstitution des devout life.
{"title":"Das a-spirierte Selbst","authors":"Katharina Opalka","doi":"10.1515/nzsth-2023-0071","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/nzsth-2023-0071","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Die Rezension behandelt George Pattisons Phänomenologie eines christlichen, a-spirierten Leben im ersten Band seiner dreibändig angelegten Philosophy of Christian Life. Dabei wird insbesondere Folgendes fokussiert: Die Art, wie Pattison die von Franz von Sales entlehnte Person der Philothea als Figuration frommen Lebens nutzt; die Frage nach der Möglichkeit von a-spirierten Leben in institutionellen Machtstrukturen und die medio-passive Konstitution des devout life.","PeriodicalId":507522,"journal":{"name":"Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie","volume":"28 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140252544","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pattison behandelt in dem letzten Band seiner Philosophie des christlichen Lebens die titelgebende Frage nach einer Metaphysik der Liebe. Die Diskussion fokussiert sich auf eine Wiedergabe dreier zentraler Gedankengänge und Elemente: Zunächst auf die Rolle der Sprache mit ihren Formen als Ruf und Versprechen sowie anschließend auf das Verhältnis von Liebe und Zeit als Chronos und Kairos, in deren Verbindung Pattison seine Gedanken von einer individuellen auf eine kirchliche Ebene ausweitet. Schließlich wird nachgezeichnet, inwiefern für Pattison aus seinen dargelegten Gedanken eine unumgängliche menschliche Solidarität folgt. Kritisch wird hinterfragt, wieso eine universale Liebe, wie sie Pattison vorschwebt, Selbstliebe generell ausschließt.
{"title":"Und zum Schluss: Liebe","authors":"Kinga Zeller","doi":"10.1515/nzsth-2023-0072","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/nzsth-2023-0072","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Pattison behandelt in dem letzten Band seiner Philosophie des christlichen Lebens die titelgebende Frage nach einer Metaphysik der Liebe. Die Diskussion fokussiert sich auf eine Wiedergabe dreier zentraler Gedankengänge und Elemente: Zunächst auf die Rolle der Sprache mit ihren Formen als Ruf und Versprechen sowie anschließend auf das Verhältnis von Liebe und Zeit als Chronos und Kairos, in deren Verbindung Pattison seine Gedanken von einer individuellen auf eine kirchliche Ebene ausweitet. Schließlich wird nachgezeichnet, inwiefern für Pattison aus seinen dargelegten Gedanken eine unumgängliche menschliche Solidarität folgt. Kritisch wird hinterfragt, wieso eine universale Liebe, wie sie Pattison vorschwebt, Selbstliebe generell ausschließt.","PeriodicalId":507522,"journal":{"name":"Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie","volume":"90 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140254181","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Dies ist eine Antwort auf George Pattisons magistrale Triologie über eine „Philosophy of Christian Life“ – mit Schwerpunkt auf dem zweiten Teil: „A Rhetorics of the Words“. Der Beitrag bietet eine Analyse des zentralen Begriffes, nämlich des „Rufs“ oder der „Berufung“. Dies führt zu drei grundlegenden Fragen nach dem fehlenden Gemeinschaftscharakter der Berufung in Pattisons Darstellung; seiner einseitigen Neigung zum Pessimismus in seiner Kulturkritik; und, der nur marginalen Rolle, die andere Artikulationen als der Ruf innerhalb eines „frommen Lebens“ und seiner ambivalenten Autorität spielen.
{"title":"Vocatus est","authors":"Hartmut von Sass","doi":"10.1515/nzsth-2023-0068","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/nzsth-2023-0068","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Dies ist eine Antwort auf George Pattisons magistrale Triologie über eine „Philosophy of Christian Life“ – mit Schwerpunkt auf dem zweiten Teil: „A Rhetorics of the Words“. Der Beitrag bietet eine Analyse des zentralen Begriffes, nämlich des „Rufs“ oder der „Berufung“. Dies führt zu drei grundlegenden Fragen nach dem fehlenden Gemeinschaftscharakter der Berufung in Pattisons Darstellung; seiner einseitigen Neigung zum Pessimismus in seiner Kulturkritik; und, der nur marginalen Rolle, die andere Artikulationen als der Ruf innerhalb eines „frommen Lebens“ und seiner ambivalenten Autorität spielen.","PeriodicalId":507522,"journal":{"name":"Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie","volume":"79 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140254633","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
I argue that the classical doctrine of the eternal processions (CDEP) is inconsistent with the doctrine of creation ex nihilo (DCEN). More specifically, I argue that the metaphysical entailments of each doctrine are inconsistent with one another. According to the CDEP, God must be atemporal and immutable to avoid entailing some sort of ontological subordination obtaining between the Son and Spirit to the Father. On classical understandings of immutability, and thus atemporality, God experiences no change whatsoever, be that change intrinsic or extrinsic. According to the DCEN, there is a state of affairs in which God exists without the universe, and there exists a state of affairs in which God exists with the universe, entailing – at minimum that God extrinsically changes. As a result, the CDEP and the DCEN are inconsistent with one another and cannot both be affirmed within the same coherent theological system. One of the two, or both, should be rejected.
{"title":"The Classical Doctrine of the Eternal Processions and Creation ex nihilo","authors":"Andrew Hollingsworth","doi":"10.1515/nzsth-2023-0062","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/nzsth-2023-0062","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 I argue that the classical doctrine of the eternal processions (CDEP) is inconsistent with the doctrine of creation ex nihilo (DCEN). More specifically, I argue that the metaphysical entailments of each doctrine are inconsistent with one another. According to the CDEP, God must be atemporal and immutable to avoid entailing some sort of ontological subordination obtaining between the Son and Spirit to the Father. On classical understandings of immutability, and thus atemporality, God experiences no change whatsoever, be that change intrinsic or extrinsic. According to the DCEN, there is a state of affairs in which God exists without the universe, and there exists a state of affairs in which God exists with the universe, entailing – at minimum that God extrinsically changes. As a result, the CDEP and the DCEN are inconsistent with one another and cannot both be affirmed within the same coherent theological system. One of the two, or both, should be rejected.","PeriodicalId":507522,"journal":{"name":"Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie","volume":"11 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139604349","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Zusammenfassung Die „romantische Liebe“ bildet unter modernen Bedingungen eine zentrale Quelle sozialer Anerkennung. Ihr nicht selten durch die Verwendung religiöser Semantik signalisierter Bedeutungszuwachs sorgt aber zugleich für eine Steigerung der Verletzlichkeit des einzelnen. Der damit beschriebenen spannungsvollen Eigenart, die der Anerkennungssphäre der Liebe unter modernen Bedingungen zukommt, wird in diesem Text nachgegangen. Dabei stehen zwei Autorinnen der Gegenwart, die sich mit den Ambivalenzen heutiger Liebesbeziehungen besonders eindrücklich auseinandergesetzt haben, im Fokus: die Kultursoziologin Eva Illouz und die Schriftstellerin Sally Rooney. Nach einem einführenden Blick auf die den beiden Autorinnen gemeinsame Thematik, geht es um spezifische Unsicherheitserfahrungen, die sich mit dem Aufstieg der Liebe zu einer zentralen Anerkennungssphäre verbinden. Dann wird die für romantische Beziehungen ebenfalls charakteristische Spannung zwischen Anerkennung und Autonomie ins Auge gefasst. Es folgen schließlich theologische Überlegungen, die an Illouz‘ eigene Ausführungen zur religiösen Dimension der Liebe anknüpfen.
{"title":"Modern Love","authors":"Karl Tetzlaff","doi":"10.1515/nzsth-2023-0058","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/nzsth-2023-0058","url":null,"abstract":"Zusammenfassung Die „romantische Liebe“ bildet unter modernen Bedingungen eine zentrale Quelle sozialer Anerkennung. Ihr nicht selten durch die Verwendung religiöser Semantik signalisierter Bedeutungszuwachs sorgt aber zugleich für eine Steigerung der Verletzlichkeit des einzelnen. Der damit beschriebenen spannungsvollen Eigenart, die der Anerkennungssphäre der Liebe unter modernen Bedingungen zukommt, wird in diesem Text nachgegangen. Dabei stehen zwei Autorinnen der Gegenwart, die sich mit den Ambivalenzen heutiger Liebesbeziehungen besonders eindrücklich auseinandergesetzt haben, im Fokus: die Kultursoziologin Eva Illouz und die Schriftstellerin Sally Rooney. Nach einem einführenden Blick auf die den beiden Autorinnen gemeinsame Thematik, geht es um spezifische Unsicherheitserfahrungen, die sich mit dem Aufstieg der Liebe zu einer zentralen Anerkennungssphäre verbinden. Dann wird die für romantische Beziehungen ebenfalls charakteristische Spannung zwischen Anerkennung und Autonomie ins Auge gefasst. Es folgen schließlich theologische Überlegungen, die an Illouz‘ eigene Ausführungen zur religiösen Dimension der Liebe anknüpfen.","PeriodicalId":507522,"journal":{"name":"Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie","volume":"23 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139165381","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The article responds to three reviews of Philosophy of Christian Life, focussing on issues of heteronomy, abuse of power, the authority of the call, language, technology, and deliverance from self-hatred.
{"title":"Aspiration, Vocation, and Love","authors":"George Pattison","doi":"10.1515/nzsth-2023-0067","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/nzsth-2023-0067","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The article responds to three reviews of Philosophy of Christian Life, focussing on issues of heteronomy, abuse of power, the authority of the call, language, technology, and deliverance from self-hatred.","PeriodicalId":507522,"journal":{"name":"Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie","volume":"198 1‐6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139165669","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This comment raises two worries for Crane’s view of religious beliefs and their contents. First, I argue that his appeal to inferentialism about the contents of dispositional beliefs cannot fully avoid the problem of inconsistent beliefs. For the same problem can be raised for occurrent thought, and the inferentialist solution is not available there. Second, I argue that religious beliefs differ from ordinary beliefs with respect to their justification in cases of peer disagreements. This suggests that noncognitivism about religious beliefs, which Crane opposes, is the correct view after all.
{"title":"Religious Belief, Occurrent Thought, and Reasonable Disagreement","authors":"Eva Schmidt","doi":"10.1515/nzsth-2023-0055","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/nzsth-2023-0055","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This comment raises two worries for Crane’s view of religious beliefs and their contents. First, I argue that his appeal to inferentialism about the contents of dispositional beliefs cannot fully avoid the problem of inconsistent beliefs. For the same problem can be raised for occurrent thought, and the inferentialist solution is not available there. Second, I argue that religious beliefs differ from ordinary beliefs with respect to their justification in cases of peer disagreements. This suggests that noncognitivism about religious beliefs, which Crane opposes, is the correct view after all.","PeriodicalId":507522,"journal":{"name":"Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie","volume":"116 1","pages":"438 - 446"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139291996","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This paper discusses the familiar question of whether expressions of faith or conviction offered by religious believers really express their beliefs, in the standard sense of ‘belief’ used in philosophy and psychology. Some hold that these expressions do not express genuine beliefs because they do not meet the standards of rationality, coherence and integration which govern beliefs. So they must serve some other function. But this picture of ‘genuine belief’ is inadequate, for reasons independent of the phenomenon of religion. Once we get a better picture of belief, we can see that religious beliefs conform to this picture, and that typical expressions of faith really are expressions of belief in the proper sense.
{"title":"Is Religious Belief a Kind of Belief?","authors":"Tim Crane","doi":"10.1515/nzsth-2023-0060","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/nzsth-2023-0060","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper discusses the familiar question of whether expressions of faith or conviction offered by religious believers really express their beliefs, in the standard sense of ‘belief’ used in philosophy and psychology. Some hold that these expressions do not express genuine beliefs because they do not meet the standards of rationality, coherence and integration which govern beliefs. So they must serve some other function. But this picture of ‘genuine belief’ is inadequate, for reasons independent of the phenomenon of religion. Once we get a better picture of belief, we can see that religious beliefs conform to this picture, and that typical expressions of faith really are expressions of belief in the proper sense.","PeriodicalId":507522,"journal":{"name":"Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie","volume":"19 1","pages":"414 - 429"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139296886","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This paper argues that even Crane’s modified account of belief doesn’t do justice to all varieties of religious belief. Particularly beliefs associated with ritual behavior don’t seem to match the criteria of Crane’s alternative account. So, the question remains whether these beliefs should still be called beliefs, or whether the standard model of belief is even more false than Crane suspects.
{"title":"What’s Belief Got to Do With It?","authors":"Sebastian Gäb","doi":"10.1515/nzsth-2023-0061","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/nzsth-2023-0061","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper argues that even Crane’s modified account of belief doesn’t do justice to all varieties of religious belief. Particularly beliefs associated with ritual behavior don’t seem to match the criteria of Crane’s alternative account. So, the question remains whether these beliefs should still be called beliefs, or whether the standard model of belief is even more false than Crane suspects.","PeriodicalId":507522,"journal":{"name":"Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie","volume":"89 1","pages":"430 - 437"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139300599","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：