Zusammenfassung Der Aufsatz kritisiert Tendenzen der Forschung, Luther als Gegner der These „Sollen impliziert Können“ zu präsentieren, und argumentiert dafür, dass hierbei nicht nur der strukturelle Ort usus theologicus fehlbestimmt, sondern auch die existenzielle Dringlichkeit verkannt wird, die für Luther das Festhalten an dieser These hat.
{"title":"Geforderte Ohnmacht? Luther über „Sollen impliziert Können“","authors":"S. Neuber","doi":"10.1515/nzsth-2021-0022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/nzsth-2021-0022","url":null,"abstract":"Zusammenfassung Der Aufsatz kritisiert Tendenzen der Forschung, Luther als Gegner der These „Sollen impliziert Können“ zu präsentieren, und argumentiert dafür, dass hierbei nicht nur der strukturelle Ort usus theologicus fehlbestimmt, sondern auch die existenzielle Dringlichkeit verkannt wird, die für Luther das Festhalten an dieser These hat.","PeriodicalId":51975,"journal":{"name":"NEUE ZEITSCHRIFT FUR SYSTEMATISCHE THEOLOGIE UND RELIGIONSPHILOSOPHIE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49251447","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Summary Dogmatic debates in early Christianity shaped philosophical discourse just as Greek philosophy offered the conceptual tools to engage and, accordingly to crystalize early Christian practice, into a formal system of belief. Thus, in the recently-published The Rise of Christian Theology and the End of Ancient Metaphysics, Johannes Zachhuber notes that “Patristic thought as a whole can be identified as a Christian philosophy.” Following suit – though not without nuance – this paper suggests treating Patristic scriptural exegesis as an exercise of speculative philosophy, as evidenced in Augustine’s interpretation of the figure of the cross at Eph 3.18, where the cross progressively becomes a simple yet compelling paradigm of divine manifestation. This paradigm can be framed according to Augustine’s mature articulation of the ‘ontological principle’ of manifestation in s. 165: “From the depth which you cannot see rises everything that you can see.” By engaging in scriptural exegesis, within a gestalt where Wisdom, sacred and profane alike, merge in the incarnate God manifest in Christ, Augustine articulates unprecedented philosophical principles.
{"title":"Scriptural Exegesis or Speculative Philosophy","authors":"P. Irizar","doi":"10.1515/nzsth-2021-0016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/nzsth-2021-0016","url":null,"abstract":"Summary Dogmatic debates in early Christianity shaped philosophical discourse just as Greek philosophy offered the conceptual tools to engage and, accordingly to crystalize early Christian practice, into a formal system of belief. Thus, in the recently-published The Rise of Christian Theology and the End of Ancient Metaphysics, Johannes Zachhuber notes that “Patristic thought as a whole can be identified as a Christian philosophy.” Following suit – though not without nuance – this paper suggests treating Patristic scriptural exegesis as an exercise of speculative philosophy, as evidenced in Augustine’s interpretation of the figure of the cross at Eph 3.18, where the cross progressively becomes a simple yet compelling paradigm of divine manifestation. This paradigm can be framed according to Augustine’s mature articulation of the ‘ontological principle’ of manifestation in s. 165: “From the depth which you cannot see rises everything that you can see.” By engaging in scriptural exegesis, within a gestalt where Wisdom, sacred and profane alike, merge in the incarnate God manifest in Christ, Augustine articulates unprecedented philosophical principles.","PeriodicalId":51975,"journal":{"name":"NEUE ZEITSCHRIFT FUR SYSTEMATISCHE THEOLOGIE UND RELIGIONSPHILOSOPHIE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48322991","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract In his Encyclopedia, the late Hegel makes the highest demands on truth and justification from the first paragraph onward. With this, Hegel takes up the skeptical challenge and believes that he can overcome this problem. However, it is not easy to see how Hegel tries to meet this challenge in the Science of Logic, which plays a fundamental role in Hegel’s encyclopedic project. The present article argues that the question of the justification of the claim to truth is a fruitful perspective for the interpretation of the Science of Logic. For this purpose Hegel’s answer to the Agrippan Trilemma is examined, which P. Franks analyzed as a basic problem for Classical German Philosophy. One possible interpretation of Hegel sees him solving the skeptical trilemma at the beginning of the Logic. The article argues against this possibility that the Logic of the Concept contains Hegel’s actual solution. This solution consists in (1) that the concept represents the principle of logic and (2) that the concept itself must be presented in the form of an apagogical argument. Finally, the article gives a reason why Hegel sees an analogy to the ontological argument in this attempt of an ultimate justification.
{"title":"Hegel’s Answer to the Agrippian Trilemma","authors":"Hannes Gustav Melichar","doi":"10.1515/nzsth-2021-0021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/nzsth-2021-0021","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In his Encyclopedia, the late Hegel makes the highest demands on truth and justification from the first paragraph onward. With this, Hegel takes up the skeptical challenge and believes that he can overcome this problem. However, it is not easy to see how Hegel tries to meet this challenge in the Science of Logic, which plays a fundamental role in Hegel’s encyclopedic project. The present article argues that the question of the justification of the claim to truth is a fruitful perspective for the interpretation of the Science of Logic. For this purpose Hegel’s answer to the Agrippan Trilemma is examined, which P. Franks analyzed as a basic problem for Classical German Philosophy. One possible interpretation of Hegel sees him solving the skeptical trilemma at the beginning of the Logic. The article argues against this possibility that the Logic of the Concept contains Hegel’s actual solution. This solution consists in (1) that the concept represents the principle of logic and (2) that the concept itself must be presented in the form of an apagogical argument. Finally, the article gives a reason why Hegel sees an analogy to the ontological argument in this attempt of an ultimate justification.","PeriodicalId":51975,"journal":{"name":"NEUE ZEITSCHRIFT FUR SYSTEMATISCHE THEOLOGIE UND RELIGIONSPHILOSOPHIE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48465311","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This paper investigates the concept of missio Dei at Willingen and beyond, and identifies its most remarkable feature which regards God as the initiator and subject of mission, thereby redefining missio ecclesiae with three striking characteristics: first, all places of the world including both the immediate neighborhood and the uttermost parts of the earths; second, all spheres of life such as society, politics, economy and culture; and finally, all events of the time such as catastrophes in the history. In so doing, this paper clearly discovers that missio Dei is here approached primarily in a differentiation from or a sharp contrast to missio ecclesiae from the start, and that, for that reason, the concept of missio Dei at Willingen and beyond has not been fully trinitarian, though it often mentions the triune God. And it also discovers that it goes further either toward an emphasis on culture on the one hand, or toward that on the world on the other hand. Such being the case, this paper suggests that it is necessary to consider the implications of the doctrine of the Trinity for mission more fully to reconfigure the concept of missio Dei. Due to some limits, this paper does not deal with this issue full-fledgedly, but intends to suggest a couple of guidelines for doing so. First, we need to approach missio Dei quite differently, that is, primarily not in relation to missio ecclesiae but in relation to processio Dei, that is, the procession of the triune God. Second, noting that, since the early church, missio Dei has been understood primarily in relation to processio Dei, we need to keep in mind that we could not discuss missio more fully without dealing with processio, and vice versa. If we have these two guidelines in mind, the concept of missio Dei would be much more abundant and fruitful. Further studies on some particular implications of the doctrine of the Trinity for mission need to be done in missiology and also theology in general in the near future.
{"title":"A Critical Analysis of the Concept of Missio Dei. Suggestions for a Trinitarian Understanding","authors":"Chung-Hyun Baik","doi":"10.1515/nzsth-2021-0019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/nzsth-2021-0019","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper investigates the concept of missio Dei at Willingen and beyond, and identifies its most remarkable feature which regards God as the initiator and subject of mission, thereby redefining missio ecclesiae with three striking characteristics: first, all places of the world including both the immediate neighborhood and the uttermost parts of the earths; second, all spheres of life such as society, politics, economy and culture; and finally, all events of the time such as catastrophes in the history. In so doing, this paper clearly discovers that missio Dei is here approached primarily in a differentiation from or a sharp contrast to missio ecclesiae from the start, and that, for that reason, the concept of missio Dei at Willingen and beyond has not been fully trinitarian, though it often mentions the triune God. And it also discovers that it goes further either toward an emphasis on culture on the one hand, or toward that on the world on the other hand. Such being the case, this paper suggests that it is necessary to consider the implications of the doctrine of the Trinity for mission more fully to reconfigure the concept of missio Dei. Due to some limits, this paper does not deal with this issue full-fledgedly, but intends to suggest a couple of guidelines for doing so. First, we need to approach missio Dei quite differently, that is, primarily not in relation to missio ecclesiae but in relation to processio Dei, that is, the procession of the triune God. Second, noting that, since the early church, missio Dei has been understood primarily in relation to processio Dei, we need to keep in mind that we could not discuss missio more fully without dealing with processio, and vice versa. If we have these two guidelines in mind, the concept of missio Dei would be much more abundant and fruitful. Further studies on some particular implications of the doctrine of the Trinity for mission need to be done in missiology and also theology in general in the near future.","PeriodicalId":51975,"journal":{"name":"NEUE ZEITSCHRIFT FUR SYSTEMATISCHE THEOLOGIE UND RELIGIONSPHILOSOPHIE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48663127","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Zusammenfassung Dieser Beitrag fokussiert den von Hans Jonas in Der Gottesbegriff nach Auschwitz. Eine jüdische Stimme als Antwort auf die Theodizeefrage skizzierten Mythos und setzt ihn in Beziehung zu Fiktionalitätsdiskursen. An die Darstellung und Erläuterung des Mythos schließen sich Ausführungen zu den ihm zugrundeliegenden Quellen (u. a. Gnosis, Kabbala, Hegel) sowie zu Jonas’ eigenen Reflexionen zur Textgattung und zu den Kernaussagen des Mythos an. Nach einer christlich-theologischen Würdigung der jonasschen Religionsphilosophie wird der Mythos unter Bezugnahme auf Fiktionalitätsdiskurse betrachtet und auf Berührungspunkte mit jüdischen, christlichen und gnostischen Weltentstehungs- und Welterklärungserzählungen aufmerksam gemacht.
{"title":"Die Wahrheit des fiktionalen Mythos","authors":"Raphael Döhn","doi":"10.1515/nzsth-2021-0018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/nzsth-2021-0018","url":null,"abstract":"Zusammenfassung Dieser Beitrag fokussiert den von Hans Jonas in Der Gottesbegriff nach Auschwitz. Eine jüdische Stimme als Antwort auf die Theodizeefrage skizzierten Mythos und setzt ihn in Beziehung zu Fiktionalitätsdiskursen. An die Darstellung und Erläuterung des Mythos schließen sich Ausführungen zu den ihm zugrundeliegenden Quellen (u. a. Gnosis, Kabbala, Hegel) sowie zu Jonas’ eigenen Reflexionen zur Textgattung und zu den Kernaussagen des Mythos an. Nach einer christlich-theologischen Würdigung der jonasschen Religionsphilosophie wird der Mythos unter Bezugnahme auf Fiktionalitätsdiskurse betrachtet und auf Berührungspunkte mit jüdischen, christlichen und gnostischen Weltentstehungs- und Welterklärungserzählungen aufmerksam gemacht.","PeriodicalId":51975,"journal":{"name":"NEUE ZEITSCHRIFT FUR SYSTEMATISCHE THEOLOGIE UND RELIGIONSPHILOSOPHIE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41282835","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Summary In a relational epistemology and ontology, we are allowed to speak freely about the existence of atoms, chairs, love, and God, on the condition that we are prepared to give an account of the relations we have to them. At first sight, Caputo seems to endorse such a relational view. When it comes to concepts like democracy, hospitability, justice, and God, though, Caputo argues that the relations we have to the realities to which these concepts refer inhibit us to speak of their existence. They are events which insist, but do not exist. In this article, it is argued that the differences between the relations of human beings to existing X’s and the relations of human beings to insisting X’s are not as fundamental as to make a distinction in principle between insistence and existence. In our relational view, insistence is a particular instance of existence.
{"title":"Caputo’s notion of insistence as an instance of existence","authors":"P. J. Huiser, R. Benjamins","doi":"10.1515/nzsth-2021-0017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/nzsth-2021-0017","url":null,"abstract":"Summary In a relational epistemology and ontology, we are allowed to speak freely about the existence of atoms, chairs, love, and God, on the condition that we are prepared to give an account of the relations we have to them. At first sight, Caputo seems to endorse such a relational view. When it comes to concepts like democracy, hospitability, justice, and God, though, Caputo argues that the relations we have to the realities to which these concepts refer inhibit us to speak of their existence. They are events which insist, but do not exist. In this article, it is argued that the differences between the relations of human beings to existing X’s and the relations of human beings to insisting X’s are not as fundamental as to make a distinction in principle between insistence and existence. In our relational view, insistence is a particular instance of existence.","PeriodicalId":51975,"journal":{"name":"NEUE ZEITSCHRIFT FUR SYSTEMATISCHE THEOLOGIE UND RELIGIONSPHILOSOPHIE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42867882","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Summary In this article, I propose a different reading of Foucault’s newly published work than suggested by the publishers and in initial reviews. I question the claim that it represents the fourth volume of the History of Sexuality and rather propose to regard it as an intended second volume. Comparing Foucault’s final plan of publication of the series with the background and stated purpose of Les aveux de la chair, I hold that it is part of a different philosophical project than volumes two and three. Foucault wrote Les aveux de la chair to explore the roots of modern power in the experiences that early Christianity occasioned. This makes the work relevant for current theology and the philosophy of religion.
{"title":"Reading Confessions of the Flesh as the Second Volume of the History of Sexuality","authors":"R. Rolfsen","doi":"10.1515/nzsth-2021-0020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/nzsth-2021-0020","url":null,"abstract":"Summary In this article, I propose a different reading of Foucault’s newly published work than suggested by the publishers and in initial reviews. I question the claim that it represents the fourth volume of the History of Sexuality and rather propose to regard it as an intended second volume. Comparing Foucault’s final plan of publication of the series with the background and stated purpose of Les aveux de la chair, I hold that it is part of a different philosophical project than volumes two and three. Foucault wrote Les aveux de la chair to explore the roots of modern power in the experiences that early Christianity occasioned. This makes the work relevant for current theology and the philosophy of religion.","PeriodicalId":51975,"journal":{"name":"NEUE ZEITSCHRIFT FUR SYSTEMATISCHE THEOLOGIE UND RELIGIONSPHILOSOPHIE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45151086","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Zusammenfassung In der Heidelberger Disputation (1518) lehnt Luther die aristotelische Anthropologie und den scholastischen Gottesbegriff ab. Stattdessen behauptet er die Einheit der Verborgenheit Gottes am Kreuz und der paradoxalen Liebe Gottes zu den Menschen. Nicht nur in diesem Fall, sondern dauerhaft und durchgehend scheint die polemische und zugespitzte Form der Disputation die evangelische Theologie geprägt zu haben – im Guten wie im Schlechten. Ich gehe daher der Frage nach, wie die Sprachformen der Disputation und des Dialogs dieses Denken diskursiv formatiert haben. Die sokratische Wahrheitssuche einerseits und die scholastische Polemik andererseits haben m. E. diese Denkform tiefgehend beeinflusst. Mit seiner Schrifthermeneutik spitzt aber Luther die theologische Wahrheitsbehauptung noch einmal zu. Theodor Dieter lehnt aber Luthers Disjunktion zwischen Selbstliebe und Kreuzesliebe als weder schlüssig noch besonders überzeugend ab. Gegen Dieter schlage ich vor, dieses Denken anders zu interpretieren, und zwar vom Paradox her. Dadurch komme ich zu einer neuen Antwort auf die alte Frage nach dem Schibboleth, dem Grundprinzip und der Erkennbarkeit einer „evangelischen“ Sprache.
{"title":"Theologica Paradoxa","authors":"M. Mjaaland","doi":"10.1515/nzsth-2021-0011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/nzsth-2021-0011","url":null,"abstract":"Zusammenfassung In der Heidelberger Disputation (1518) lehnt Luther die aristotelische Anthropologie und den scholastischen Gottesbegriff ab. Stattdessen behauptet er die Einheit der Verborgenheit Gottes am Kreuz und der paradoxalen Liebe Gottes zu den Menschen. Nicht nur in diesem Fall, sondern dauerhaft und durchgehend scheint die polemische und zugespitzte Form der Disputation die evangelische Theologie geprägt zu haben – im Guten wie im Schlechten. Ich gehe daher der Frage nach, wie die Sprachformen der Disputation und des Dialogs dieses Denken diskursiv formatiert haben. Die sokratische Wahrheitssuche einerseits und die scholastische Polemik andererseits haben m. E. diese Denkform tiefgehend beeinflusst. Mit seiner Schrifthermeneutik spitzt aber Luther die theologische Wahrheitsbehauptung noch einmal zu. Theodor Dieter lehnt aber Luthers Disjunktion zwischen Selbstliebe und Kreuzesliebe als weder schlüssig noch besonders überzeugend ab. Gegen Dieter schlage ich vor, dieses Denken anders zu interpretieren, und zwar vom Paradox her. Dadurch komme ich zu einer neuen Antwort auf die alte Frage nach dem Schibboleth, dem Grundprinzip und der Erkennbarkeit einer „evangelischen“ Sprache.","PeriodicalId":51975,"journal":{"name":"NEUE ZEITSCHRIFT FUR SYSTEMATISCHE THEOLOGIE UND RELIGIONSPHILOSOPHIE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/nzsth-2021-0011","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42915772","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Zusammenfassung In diesem Aufsatz wird zunächst das klassische Theodizee-problem dargelegt und eine Typologie seiner möglichen Lösungsarten (apologetische Konzeptionen, Atheismus, begriffliche Modifikationen an der Gottesvorstellung, Agnostizismus) entworfen. Nach einer zusammenfassenden Erörterung dieser Strategien wendet sich der Verfasser einer reizvollen, bislang kaum beachteten Stellungnahme von J. S. Mill zu, die er dann innerhalb der weiteren Ausführungen zu berücksichtigen sucht. Im zweiten Teil des Aufsatzes wird die apologetische Lösung der Theodizee durch F. v. Kutschera systematisch rekonstruiert und kritisch beleuchtet. Diese Lösung hebt hervor, der letzte Sinn des Leidens sei zwar für uns nicht erfassbar, wir könnten aber im Vertrauen auf die Vorsehung Gottes annehmen und uns im Rahmen der Gemeinschaft mit Gott darauf verlassen, dass Heilsgeschichte zugleich Leidensgeschichte sei. Hierbei sollen wir im Glauben mit Gott den Weg zueinander gehen – wohin er auch führt. Nach einer partiellen Infragestellung dieser Lösung, stellt der Verfasser die Frage, ob unser Vertrauen zu Gott unter allen denkbaren Umständen bedingungslos bleiben sollte. Dabei wird auf die Risiken eines blinden und fanatischen Glaubens hingewiesen. Demgegenüber wird das Bedürfnis danach bejaht, unseren Glauben doch an die positiven Aussichten für die Erfüllung gewisser menschlicher Fundamentalerwartungen (keine Vernichtung von Menschheit sowie anderer Lebewesen, kein sinnloser und umfassender Weltuntergang, die Anerkennung und Bewahrung der Schöpfung etc.) zu binden.
本文的摘要首先阐述了经典的theo二紧一问题，为其各种可能的解决方法(这类论断、无神论、对上帝观点的概念以及不可知论的改变)的类型学设计了。总结其策略的摘要讨论结束后，执笔者引用了J. s。在第二篇论文的第二部分，F. v. kucha有系统的阐释法，使之受到标记。这一解决办法强调，尽管苦难的最后一种感觉无法为我们所理解，但我们可以信赖神的保佑，并在与神同在的团体的框架内，依靠治愈历史就可以同时伴随着痛苦。这样我们就必凭着信心与神同教而行的道路。下台一段时间后，作者提出一个问题:在任何情况下，我们对上帝的信任都必须无条件地保持。报告指出盲目而狂热的信仰有风险。另一方面，真正的需要也就是相信会有积极的前景来实现人类的一些基本期望(人类和其他生物的毁灭，没有意义和全面的世界毁灭，世界受人的认可和保护，等等)。
{"title":"Die Möglichkeiten moderner apologetischer Lösungen des Theodizeeproblems – Dargestellt und betrachtet anhand des Lösungsversuchs von F.v. Kutschera, sowie einer Anregung von J. S. Mill","authors":"Dragan Jakovljević","doi":"10.1515/nzsth-2021-0008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/nzsth-2021-0008","url":null,"abstract":"Zusammenfassung In diesem Aufsatz wird zunächst das klassische Theodizee-problem dargelegt und eine Typologie seiner möglichen Lösungsarten (apologetische Konzeptionen, Atheismus, begriffliche Modifikationen an der Gottesvorstellung, Agnostizismus) entworfen. Nach einer zusammenfassenden Erörterung dieser Strategien wendet sich der Verfasser einer reizvollen, bislang kaum beachteten Stellungnahme von J. S. Mill zu, die er dann innerhalb der weiteren Ausführungen zu berücksichtigen sucht. Im zweiten Teil des Aufsatzes wird die apologetische Lösung der Theodizee durch F. v. Kutschera systematisch rekonstruiert und kritisch beleuchtet. Diese Lösung hebt hervor, der letzte Sinn des Leidens sei zwar für uns nicht erfassbar, wir könnten aber im Vertrauen auf die Vorsehung Gottes annehmen und uns im Rahmen der Gemeinschaft mit Gott darauf verlassen, dass Heilsgeschichte zugleich Leidensgeschichte sei. Hierbei sollen wir im Glauben mit Gott den Weg zueinander gehen – wohin er auch führt. Nach einer partiellen Infragestellung dieser Lösung, stellt der Verfasser die Frage, ob unser Vertrauen zu Gott unter allen denkbaren Umständen bedingungslos bleiben sollte. Dabei wird auf die Risiken eines blinden und fanatischen Glaubens hingewiesen. Demgegenüber wird das Bedürfnis danach bejaht, unseren Glauben doch an die positiven Aussichten für die Erfüllung gewisser menschlicher Fundamentalerwartungen (keine Vernichtung von Menschheit sowie anderer Lebewesen, kein sinnloser und umfassender Weltuntergang, die Anerkennung und Bewahrung der Schöpfung etc.) zu binden.","PeriodicalId":51975,"journal":{"name":"NEUE ZEITSCHRIFT FUR SYSTEMATISCHE THEOLOGIE UND RELIGIONSPHILOSOPHIE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46518479","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This paper lays out the first step towards a complete methodology of interreligious investigation, emphasizing the issue of how we should treat individual religions while not committing ourselves to religious apologetics in general. From that perspective, I introduce two theoretical requirements that the methodology of interreligious exploration should fulfill, what we call the constraint of consistency and ontology and the constraint of absoluteness and plurality. The article expounds how and on what grounds those two methodological constraints can be fulfilled by the philosophical notions of “naturalism” and “religion as grammar.” In doing so we reach the following methodological canons: When initiating interreligious exploration, (1) adopt an “open-ended minimal naturalism” in which transcendent realities appearing in individual religions are neither affirmed nor denied in advance, and (2) on the basis of that naturalism, take individual religions as different systems of grammar, that is, distinct linguistic-conceptual frameworks upon which one can see and understand various religious worlds in a constitutive way. The paper is the exposition and defense of these ideas.
{"title":"Naturalism, Wittgensteinian Grammar, and Initiation into Interreligious Exploration","authors":"Youngjin Kiem","doi":"10.1515/nzsth-2021-0015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/nzsth-2021-0015","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper lays out the first step towards a complete methodology of interreligious investigation, emphasizing the issue of how we should treat individual religions while not committing ourselves to religious apologetics in general. From that perspective, I introduce two theoretical requirements that the methodology of interreligious exploration should fulfill, what we call the constraint of consistency and ontology and the constraint of absoluteness and plurality. The article expounds how and on what grounds those two methodological constraints can be fulfilled by the philosophical notions of “naturalism” and “religion as grammar.” In doing so we reach the following methodological canons: When initiating interreligious exploration, (1) adopt an “open-ended minimal naturalism” in which transcendent realities appearing in individual religions are neither affirmed nor denied in advance, and (2) on the basis of that naturalism, take individual religions as different systems of grammar, that is, distinct linguistic-conceptual frameworks upon which one can see and understand various religious worlds in a constitutive way. The paper is the exposition and defense of these ideas.","PeriodicalId":51975,"journal":{"name":"NEUE ZEITSCHRIFT FUR SYSTEMATISCHE THEOLOGIE UND RELIGIONSPHILOSOPHIE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/nzsth-2021-0015","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45687421","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","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：