彼得-阿伯拉尔不是原康德主义者

IF 0.5 3区 哲学 0 RELIGION JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS ETHICS Pub Date : 2024-01-10 DOI:10.1111/jore.12466
Lily M. Abadal
{"title":"彼得-阿伯拉尔不是原康德主义者","authors":"Lily M. Abadal","doi":"10.1111/jore.12466","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Though there has been much debate about whether Abelard's ethics are dangerously subjective or surprisingly absolutist, one thing is unanimous: they are intentionalist. The goal of this article is to parse out what should be meant by this claim, distancing his ethical account from the popular Kantian appraisal. Though much of the secondary literature on Abelard likens him to Kant, I argue that this is mistaken. For Abelard, an agent's intentions are informed by their affections—whether carnal or spiritual. This becomes clear when contextualizing Abelard's use of <i>intentio</i> with a view to his <i>Commentary on Romans</i>. Using the account of intention I suggest—one nuanced by Abelard's own theological commitments and biblical exegesis—it will be clear that Abelard's ethics is not a case for the moral neutrality of the passions nor an ethic of pure reason.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":45722,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS ETHICS","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Peter Abelard is not a Proto-Kantian\",\"authors\":\"Lily M. Abadal\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jore.12466\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>Though there has been much debate about whether Abelard's ethics are dangerously subjective or surprisingly absolutist, one thing is unanimous: they are intentionalist. The goal of this article is to parse out what should be meant by this claim, distancing his ethical account from the popular Kantian appraisal. Though much of the secondary literature on Abelard likens him to Kant, I argue that this is mistaken. For Abelard, an agent's intentions are informed by their affections—whether carnal or spiritual. This becomes clear when contextualizing Abelard's use of <i>intentio</i> with a view to his <i>Commentary on Romans</i>. Using the account of intention I suggest—one nuanced by Abelard's own theological commitments and biblical exegesis—it will be clear that Abelard's ethics is not a case for the moral neutrality of the passions nor an ethic of pure reason.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45722,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS ETHICS\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS ETHICS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jore.12466\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS ETHICS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jore.12466","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管关于阿伯拉尔的伦理学是危险的主观主义还是令人吃惊的绝对主义存在着许多争论,但有一点是一致的:它是意向主义的。这篇文章的目的是分析这一说法的含义,将他的伦理学论述与流行的康德评价拉开距离。尽管许多关于阿伯拉尔的二手文献都将他与康德相提并论,但我认为这是错误的。在阿伯拉尔看来,一个人的意图是由其情感--无论是肉体的还是精神的--所决定的。如果结合阿伯拉尔对《罗马书注释》中 intentio 的使用,这一点就会变得很清楚。使用我所建议的关于意向的解释--通过阿伯拉尔自己的神学承诺和圣经注释的细微差别--就可以清楚地看出,阿伯拉尔的伦理学既不是激情的道德中立,也不是纯粹理性的伦理学。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Peter Abelard is not a Proto-Kantian

Though there has been much debate about whether Abelard's ethics are dangerously subjective or surprisingly absolutist, one thing is unanimous: they are intentionalist. The goal of this article is to parse out what should be meant by this claim, distancing his ethical account from the popular Kantian appraisal. Though much of the secondary literature on Abelard likens him to Kant, I argue that this is mistaken. For Abelard, an agent's intentions are informed by their affections—whether carnal or spiritual. This becomes clear when contextualizing Abelard's use of intentio with a view to his Commentary on Romans. Using the account of intention I suggest—one nuanced by Abelard's own theological commitments and biblical exegesis—it will be clear that Abelard's ethics is not a case for the moral neutrality of the passions nor an ethic of pure reason.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
25.00%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: Founded in 1973, the Journal of Religious Ethics is committed to publishing the very best scholarship in religious ethics, to fostering new work in neglected areas, and to stimulating exchange on significant issues. Emphasizing comparative religious ethics, foundational conceptual and methodological issues in religious ethics, and historical studies of influential figures and texts, each issue contains independent essays, commissioned articles, and a book review essay, as well as a Letters, Notes, and Comments section. Published primarily for scholars working in ethics, religious studies, history of religions, and theology, the journal is also of interest to scholars working in related fields such as philosophy, history, social and political theory, and literary studies.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Religion, Race, and the Limit of Ethics: Historical Considerations A Daoist Critique of Effort in Pierre Hadot's Philosophy Animism, Eco-Immanence, and Divine Transcendence: Toward an Integrated Religious Framework for Environmental Ethics Kierkegaard, Social Media, and Despair
×
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