Proposant quelques réflexions suggérées par 1a Lettre de 1896 sur fond de questionnement contemporain , J.-M. Aveline examine d'abord le rapport entre théologie chrétienne et dialogue interreligieux, et l'évolution de la toute récente théologie des religions depuis Vatican II. L'intérêt de la relecture de Blondel dans cette perspective est d'abord de prévenir les facilités, impasses et illusions dans lesquelles la vieille apologétique s'était enferrée, et de donner les conditions d'un véritable dialogue. Pour dépasser les limites d’un pluralisme conçu comme (...) simple juxtaposition tolérante des opinions privées, la reprise de la thématique de la vérité est capitale, en quoi le maître d’Aix s’avère d’autant plus pertinent qu'il permet de poser philosophiquement le problème religieux. Permettant du même coup de tenir avec rigueur la distinction entre immanentisme exclusiviste et transcendance qui procure le salut, Blondel établit de manière féconde la distinction et le rapport entre philosophie et théologie. Proposing some reflections suggested by the Lettre of 1896 on the background of contemporaneous questions , J.-M. Aveline first examines the relationship between Christian theology and interreligious dialogue, and the evolution of the very recent theology since Vatican II. The interest in rereading Blondel in this perspective is first to point out the simplicity, the dead ends, and the illusions to which the old apologetics was bound, and to give the conditions for a true dialogue. To go beyond the limits of a pluralism understood as a simple juxtaposition that is tolerant of private opinions, the return to the theme of truth is capital, about which the master of Aix shows himself all the ore pertinent by posing the religions problem philosophically. While holding rigorously the distinction between exclusive immanentism and a transcendence that brings salvation, Blondel establishes, in a fertile way, the distinction and relationship between philosophy and theology. (shrink)

En ouverture de ce premier dossier, J.-M. Aveline a choisi de relever trois types de questionnement auxquels la théologie chrétienne se trouve confrontée dans la problématique de la rencontre et du dialogue interreligieux, et dans la perspective de l’histoire des religions : 1. prendre conscience de la relativité du christianisme en tant que phénomène historique, et en relever théologiquement le défi ; 2. approfondir les éléments permettant de définir la singularité chrétienne au sein de la pluralité des religions, et (...) proposer pour l’Eglise une attitude et un engagement ; 3. évaluer les difficultés et les enjeux de l’expérience concrète de la rencontre interreligieuse, et en recueillir la fécondité pour une intelligence renouvelée du mystère de la foi.At the beginning of this first dossier, J.-M. Aveline has chosen to pick out three types of questioning that Christian theology faces in the problematic of inter-faith encounter and dialogue, from the standpoint of the history of religions: 1. Be aware of the relativity of Christianity in so far as it is a historical phenomenon, and take up the challenge theologically; 2. Examine the elements that define Christianity in its singularity within the plurality of religions, and propose an attitude and a commitment for the Church; 3. Evaluate the difficulties and the importance of concrete experience in inter-faith encounter, and use its fecundity for a renewed understanding of the mystery of faith. (shrink)

El objetivo del presente texto es llegar a una descripción clara y comprensiva de la forma budista de abordar la cuestión cognitiva. La palabra cognición se refiere aquí al proceso por el cual se desenvuelve la convicción de que algo es "verdadero". El examen budista de la cognición puede, a su vez, ser encarado como una forma de buscar mayor libertad y distanciamiento frente a los pensamientos, opiniones y tendencias propios.

Si la « rencontre des religions » est de plus en plus un fait, le « dialogue interreligieux » revêt un « caractère inéluctable » qui oblige à voir à frais nouveaux la place de la « théologie chrétienne ». Très tôt, Paul Tillich a voulu élargir la question de la rencontre des religions à celle du rapport entre religions et sécularisation de façon à éviter l’enfermement dans une théologie étroite des religions. L’objet de cet article est de montrer comment (...) la pensée théologique de Tillich sur l’histoire des religions s’enracine dans sa lecture de la dernière philosophie de Schelling, ce qui lui a permis de percevoir non seulement la possibilité et la fécondité d’un croisement entre religion et culture, mais aussi l’enjeu des questions christologiques liées à ce croisement. Car même si les événements politiques et la faillite de l’idéalisme allemand l’ont ensuite conduit vers d’autres débats, en particulier avec E. Troeltsch et K. Barth, Tillich est resté jusqu’au bout fidèle aux intuitions théologiques découvertes dans la philosophie schellingienne.While the “encounter of religions” is becoming an increasingly commonplace occurrence, the “ineluctable character” of “interreligious dialogue” forces us to examine, at new cost, the place of “Christian theology.” Paul Tillich sought very early on to broaden the question of the encounter of religions to that of a relationship between religions and secularization, to avoid limiting it to a narrow theology of religions. The aim of this article is to show how Tillich’s theological thinking on the history of religions is rooted in his reading of the late philosophy of Schilling. This allowed him to perceive not only the possibility and the fecundity of bringing together religion and culture, but also the Christological questions at stake in this encounter. Although political events and the failure of German idealism led to other debates, in particular with E. Troeltsch and K. Barth, Tillich remained to the end faithful to the theological intuitions discovered in Schelling’s philosophy. (shrink)

SummaryEarly geological investigations in the St David's area (Pembrokeshire) are described, particularly the work of Murchison. In a reconnaissance survey in 1835, he regarded a ridge of rocks at St David's as intrusive in unfossiliferous Cambrian; and the early Survey mapping (chiefly the work of Aveline and Ramsay) was conducted on that assumption, leading to the publication of maps in 1845 and 1857. The latter represented the margins of the St David's ridge as ‘Altered Cambrian’. So the supposedly intrusive (...) ‘syenite’ was regarded as younger, and there was no Precambrian. These views were challenged by a local doctor, Henry Hicks, who developed an idea of the ex-Survey palaeontologist John Salter that the rocks of the ridge were stratified and had formed a Precambrian island, round which Cambrian sediments (now confirmed by fossil discoveries) had been deposited. Hicks subsequently proposed subdivision of his Precambrian into ‘Dimetian’, ‘Pebidian’, and (later) ‘Arvonian’, and he attempted correlations with rocks in Shropshire, North Wales, and even North America, seeking to develop the neo-Neptunist ideas of Sterry Hunt. The challenge to the Survey's work was countered in the 1880s by the Director General, Geikie, who showed that Hicks's idea of stratification in the Dimetian was mistaken. A heated controversy developed, several amateur geologists, supported by a group of Cambridge Sedgwickians, forming a coalition of ‘Archaeans’ against the Survey. Geikie was supported by Lloyd Morgan. Attention focused particularly on Ogof Lle-sugn Cave and St Non's Arch, with theory/controversy-ladenness of observations evident on both sides. Evidence from an eyewitness student record of a Geological Society meeting reveals the ‘sanit`ized’ nature of the official summary of the debate in QJGS. Field mapping early in the twentieth century by J. F. N. Green allowed a compromise consensus to be achieved, but Green's evidence for unconformity between the Cambrian and the Dimetian, obtained by excavation, can no longer be verified, and his consensual history of the area may need revision. Unconformity between the Cambrian and the Pebidian tuffs is not in doubt, however, and Precambrian at St David's is accepted. The study exhibits features of geological controversy and the British geological community in the nineteenth century. It also furnishes a further instance of the great influence of Murchison in nineteenth-century British geology and the side-effects of his controversy with Sedgwick. (shrink)

Ce texte a déjà paru dans le catalogue E-Cité/Europe, Strasbourg, Apollonia, 2015, p. 26-30. Nous remercions Claire Dehove et WOS-Agences des hypothèses de nous avoir autorisé à le reproduire ici. WORKSHOP EN PARTENARIAT AVEC LA HEAR ET LA FACULTÉ DES ARTS DE STRASBOURG – Wos agence des hypothèses/Claire Dehove avec François Duconseille, et avec les étudiants de scénographie HEAR et du Master Critique-essais de Strasbourg, Inès Sassi, Raimonda Tamuleviciute, Ikhyong Park, Laura Perrone, Loue Aveline – - Arts plastiques et (...) autres – GALERIE – Nouvel article. (shrink)