ZUSAMMENFASSUNGRudolf Otto hat sich – was weithin unbekannt geblieben ist – mehrfach mit »Darwinismus« auseinandergesetzt. Er sah in ihm eine Gefahr für Geist und Frömmigkeit, lehnte ihn aber keineswegs in Bausch und Bogen ab. Er hielt ihn für begrenzt und wenig plausibel; ihm gegenüber sei auf der Eigenständigkeit des Geistigen zu bestehen. Otto wendet sich gegen Naturalismus und Supranaturalismus. Der Religion gehe es um »Teleologie«; ohne »Teleologie« hänge die Deszendenztheorie sozusagen in der Luft. Er wirbt für eine Doppelperspektive, ohne zu (...) berücksichtigen, dass Teleologie als solche kein theologisches Argument sein kann. Angesichts der heute verschärften Fragestellung eines »neuronalen Darwinismus« muss die Verhältnisbestimmung zur Religion innerhalb des Evolutionsdenkens gesucht werden: Religion als Schutz der biologischen und kulturellen Evolution vor sich selbst.SUMMARYAlthough it has generally gone unremarked, Rudolf Otto several times took up the discussion about “Darwinism”. He saw in it a danger for spiritual life and piety while at the same time he by no means rejected it altogether. Regarding it as plausible to a certain, limited extent, he considered it necessary at the same time to insist on the autonomy of the spiritual. Otto takes a position against naturalism and supernaturalism. In religion, he argues, it is a question of “teleology”, and without teleology the theory of descent hangs, so to speak, in the air. He calls for a double perspective, while overlooking that teleology as such cannot be a theological argument. In view of today's increasingly sharply focused “neuronal Darwinism” we need to seek to position religion within evolutionary thought: i.e. religion as the protection of biological and cultural evolution from itself. (shrink)
Martin explores divine simplicity according to the twentieth‐century Catholic theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar. She grants that Balthasar does not provide a traditional presentation of the attribute of divine simplicity. In his doctrine of the Trinity, Balthasar emphasizes such themes as distance, “hiatus,” and infinite difference, none of which seems to promise a robust doctrine of divine simplicity. Indeed, some have suggested that Balthasar's Trinitarian theology does not allow for traditional claims about divine simplicity. Martin argues, however, that one finds (...) in Balthasar's Trinitarian theology the doctrine of divine simplicity, assumed as an internalized starting point and rooted in his understanding of the analogia entis. This can be seen, for example, in his various engagements with Aquinas as well as with contemporary thinkers such as Gustav Siewerth and Erich Przywara. Likewise, when addressing the issue of whether the Trinitarian Persons can be “counted” according to our normal understanding of number, he insists with Evagrius that God is simple. In the same context, he similarly draws upon Plotinus, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzen, Tertullian, Ambrose, and Aquinas. Martin therefore gives particular attention to the Theo‐Logic and to Balthasar's affirmation in his Trinitarian theology of the points that the divine Persons are fully God, the divine attributes are identical with each other in God, and the distinction of Persons has to do not with three parts of God but with opposed subsistent relations. (shrink)
This article analises the philosophical principles of the interpretation made by Hans-Georg Gadamer about the phenomenon called historic-comprehension. In order to this objective,it is proposed a critical dialogue between the gadamerian hermeneutic and Hegel´s philosophy. First, the author ..
A consideration of the ethical implications of an aesthetic view of life, _The Question of Value _reintroduces the Nietzschean imperative to weigh the things of the world anew. James S. Hans assumes that we must and do value the world we live in every day. Rejecting the deconstructionist view, which is always willing to defer the question of value because there are no grounds for considering it, he argues that we continue to measure the world in spite of the apparent (...) lack of reason for doing so, and that we ought therefore to give serious thought to the way we make our choices. The book begins with the premise that the major task Nietzsche set for the Western world has yet to be undertaken in its fullest sense and connects this task to Heidegger’s mode of questioning in his later work and to Freud’s reflections on the death instinct and the pleasure principle. The study’s central premise is that Nietzsche was correct in diagnosing the ills of our culture and in prescribing a cure because he came to recognize the essential connection between time and revenge. He saw that the desire for revenge stems from our disgust at being temporal creatures and that a new system of values will only be possible once we overcome that self-loathing and the endless acts of revenge that stem from it. This is the most difficult of human tasks, but it is the only one worth attempting once one is able to see the full consequences of the human desire for revenge. Instead of being a critical discussion of Nietzsche’s, Heidegger’s, or Freud’s work, then, _The Question of Value _is an attempt to think through their ideas and to implement them in our world in a new way. It establishes the necessity to affirm the value of time and seeks to provide a framework through which such an affirmation of temporality can take place on a larger ethical scale. (shrink)
This paper explores the “cultural-linguistic” dimensions of Hans Frei’s theology. I make the case that several of the pragmatic and sociological concerns usually identified as distinctive marks of Frei’s later theology of the 1980s are, in fact, central to his work as far back as the early 1960s. Moreover, I demonstrate that such “cultural-linguistic” insights present important continuous threads in the development of his theology from early to late. Attending to this dimension illuminates the trajectory of Frei’s thinking as consistently (...) Wittgensteinian in sensibility, and deeply indebted to his career-long conversation with Karl Barth’s theology. If successful, this reading should clarify the ways in which Frei’s early work is more innovative, and his later work less derivative, than is often recognized. (shrink)
The standard foil for recent theories of hope is the belief-desire analysis advocated by Hobbes, Day, Downie, and others. According to this analysis, to hope for S is no more and no less than to desire S while believing S is possible but not certain. Opponents of the belief-desire analysis argue that it fails to capture one or another distinctive feature or function of hope: that hope helps one resist the temptation to despair;2 that hope engages the sophisticated capacities of (...) human agency, such as planning;3 or that hope involves the imagination in ways desire need not.4 Here, I focus on the role of imagination in hope, and discuss its implications for hope’s relation to practical commitment or end-setting. (shrink)
Karl Barth and Martin Heidegger are doubtless two of the most important and influential thinkers of the 20th century. In this groundbreaking book Timothy Stanley investigates how the question of being developed through their respective accounts of protestant theology. Whereas Heidegger suggested a post-onto-theological pathway, Barth inverted the question of being in a thoroughgoing theological ontology. In the end, both reconfigured the relationship between philosophy and theology in ways that continue to shape contemporary debate.