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

Results found: 3

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
1

Mit upadku: esej filozoficzny o źródłach zła

100%
Ziemiński I.
Kwartalnik Filozoficzny
|
2019
|
vol. 47
|
issue 1
37 - 73
EN
The article is an attempt to interpret the biblical idea of original sin in light of Albert Camus’ novel The Fall. The overarching goal is an answer the question of what (or who) is the final source of evil in the world, rather than an eisegesis of any of the mentioned texts. Three answers to this question are presented in the article; that the source is Satan, humanity, and God. The author considers the religious figures of Satan and God to be symbolic personifications of the human tendencies for good or evil, and thus suggests that the only source of evil in the world is humanity. This answer could be interpreted both as optimistic and as pessimistic. From an ethical perspective, this is an optimistic answer, since it presents humanity as free beings who are responsible for their own actions (and who do not justify their evil deeds as Satan’s trickery). However, from an existential perspective this answer may seem pessimistic, as it destroys the hope that evil could ever be removed from the world: humanity is too weak for it.
2

„Patrzcie, jak oni się kochają” – los Ananiasza i Safiry z perspektywy filozofii religii

100%
Ziemiński I.
Kwartalnik Filozoficzny
|
2022
|
vol. 50
|
issue 1-4
407-438
EN
The article discusses the death of Ananias and Sapphira, two Christians who deceived the Apostles – they claimed that they donated all the money from the sale of their land, when in reality they only donated a portion of the profits and kept the rest hidden for themselves. The author considers seven interpretations of the event (historical, polemical, psychological, legal, soteriological, theological, and ecclesiological) and concludes that the early Christian Church led by the Apostles was very strict about its stance on property – one had to get rid of all private possessions and donate them to the community. Insubordination on this matter was punishable by death. Although there was a religious explanation for this practice (according to Jesus it was hardly possible for a rich person to enter Heaven), it was primarily a means of building a foundation for a powerful Church which would be a social, political, and economical structure headed by the Apostles and their successors.
3
Content available remote

Przebaczenie śmierci – szkic filozoficzny

100%
Ziemiński I.
Paedagogia Christiana
|
2016
|
vol. 1/37
183-202
PL
Tematem artykułu jest związek przebaczenia i śmierci, w szczególności pytanie – kto, komu i czyją śmierć ma prawo (obowiązek) przebaczyć. Autor opowiada się za poglądem, że przebaczenie śmierci ma sens tylko wtedy, gdy została ona zadana przez człowieka, będąc równocześnie złem dla umierającego (niezależnie od tego, czy jest ostatecznym kresem życia, czy też bramą wieczności). Ofiara nie ma jednak nigdy obowiązku przebaczenia swojemu oprawcy, chociaż ma do tego prawo; prawo do przebaczenia śmierci jest jednak ograniczone do śmierci własnej i to tylko w takim zakresie, w jakim może być ona krzywdą dla umierającego). Nikomu jednak z nas nie wolno przebaczać w imieniu innych osób, będących ofiarami zbrodni; prawa takiego nie ma nawet Bóg, nie może bowiem wiedzieć, czym byłaby śmierć dla konkretnej osoby pozbawionej życia.
EN
The subject of the article is a connection between forgiveness and death and, especially, the question of who has the right (duty) to forgive whom and whose death. The author expresses the opinion that forgiveness of death is reasonable only when it is inflicted by a human and, simultaneously, being evil to the one who dies (whether it is final end of life or gates to eternity). However, the victim does not have a duty of forgiving his torturer although there is a right to do it; still, the right to forgive the death is limited to one’s own death and only within the limits of its being harm to the dying. No one has the right of forgiving on the behalf of others who are the victims of crime; even God does not have this right. No one knows what had been death to a specific person deprived of life.
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.