Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 4

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
Forum Philosophicum
|
2012
|
vol. 17
|
issue 1
127-134
EN
The article discusses the highlights of the 9th Polish Congress of Philosophy held in Gliwice-Katowice-Wisła, Poland from September 17-21, 2012. The conference was organized by the Institute of Philosophy of the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Silesia and the Department of Applied Social Sciences of the Faculty Organisation and Management, Silesian University of Technology in Gliwice. Aleksandra Kuzior of the Silesian University of Technology opened the conference.
PL
Mysticism and life. Religious relationship in Michel Henry’s phenomenologyThis article discusses the concept of mysticism in the phenomenology of Michel Henry, which involves the relationship of life and the living, as set against two opposing views on the connection of life to the living: Arthur Schopenhauer’s naturalistic philosophy of life and the religious doctrine of Master Eckhart. In the first approach, life is identical with the will to live, a natural force inherent to everything that is alive. In the other one, life is identified with the Christian God (infinite or absolute life), encompassing all individual livings and constituting the foundation for all creation existing out of him. Hermeneutic analyses carried out in the article consider those texts by Michel Henry which comment on the works of Master Eckhart and Schopenhauer and provide for his own interpretations of them. They aim to show that Henry’s thought involves the religious understanding of mysticism as pertaining to the connection of life and the living identified with the relationship of God (absolute life) and humans (finite life). Moreover, the mysticism of life should be distinguished from Schopenhauer’s naturalistic metaphysics of life, while its main inspiration are the Christian teachings of Master Eckhart, therefore the former may be considered as one of the interpretations of the latter. Irrespective of its Christian background, Henry’s thought can be also of interest to non‑Christians, as it presents a way of accessing (absolute) life through the experience of a living body (French: chair) underlying self‑affectivity, largely forgotten in modern times but which can be revived by communing with art, because aesthetic experience is one of the forms of feeling one’s own being. In Henry’s thought, aesthetics, ethics and religion are closely interrelated, providing an effective remedy for the contemporary cultural crisis.
EN
The paper is concerned with the issue of the connection of human nature to violence in culture, based on the analyses of two French philosophers, R. Girard and E. Lévinas. In their interpretations, violence is an inherent aspect of culture, which raises the question of what these thinkers actually regard as its underlying causes? The answer to this question involves the idea of human being who resorts to violence in his/her relations to others on the individual and social level. Identifying subjective traits as a source of violence leads to another question essential in this context: how, if at all, is it feasible to break out from the “vicious circle” of violence in culture? An affr mativeanswertothisquestionispossi bleonlyafter indicating how subjective attitudes have to evolve in order to breed the “culture of peace”, instead of violence. Overcoming the “culture of violence” requires opening up the “warring subject” to Truth and Good, characteristic for the “messianic subject”, for only the latter is able, through superhuman efforts, to resist the culture-determined imperative of reprisal and violence.
4
100%
EN
The paper addresses the problem of responsibility for the blows of fate that bear down on the innocent protagonist of the biblical Book of Job. The author asks about the agent behind the evil inflicted upon Job: whether it is God, Satan, or human beings. In seeking an answer to this question, he analyses two divergent in terpretations of the tale of Job, proposed respectively by C.G. Jung and R. Girard. The former ascribes the responsibility for Job’s sufferings to God, who in his view is essentially involved in both good and evil. Only such a God could have possibly caused evil, while subject to guilt, to be redeemed only through the sacrifice of the incarnated Son of God, Christ, on the cross. The latter scholar interprets the Book of Job as a chronicle of persecution of an innocent man, a scapegoat, while differentiating clearly between the archaic deities and the God of the Bible, which enables him to recognize in the biblical account a sharp contention between the sacrum as implied by the offering rites and the God of the Bible. The sacrum can indeed validate Jung’s perspective on God, but the true God of the Bible is rad­ically unlike a divinity including both good and evil aspects: He has no inherent evil whatever, being the absolute Good, who delivers us from all things evil.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.