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

Results found: 6

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Ludwig Feuerbach
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The issue of the article is to present Jean-Luc Marion’s conception of idol and icon as an answer to Ludwig Feuerbach’s objections against religion. Feuerbach believed religion is a figment of men that shows the truth about human being, not about God. According to Feuerbach, the idea of God is an objectified essence of human being. Marion partially agrees with Feuerbach: the category of idol shows that religious acts do not grasp God but shows narrowness of human abilities. But it is not the only way of relation to divinity. In the place of the idol Marion proposes to put an icon which does not submit to narrowness of human categories and because of that it can reach a deeper, noncomprehensible realm.
PL
Celem artykułu jest przedstawienie koncepcji idola i ikony Jean-Luc Mariona jako odpowiedzi na zarzuty wobec religii wysunięte przez L. Feuerbacha. Feuerbach uważał religię za ludzki wytwór zawierający prawdę o człowieku, a nie o Bogu. Idea Boga, według Feuerbacha, jest zobiektywizowaną istotą człowieka. Marion po części zgadza się z krytyką Feuerbacha: kategoria idola pokazuje, że akty religijne nie ujmują samego Boga, ale ukazują ograniczoność ludzkiego ujmowania. Nie jest to jednak jedyny sposób odnoszenia się do boskości. W miejsce idola Marion stawia ikonę, która nie poddaje się ograniczeniom ludzkich kategorii i dzięki temu sięga do głębszej, niepojmowalnej rzeczywistości. 
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Heilung durch Fragen

72%
PL
Celem niniejszego artykułu jest ukazanie klasycznej krytyki religii jako pożytku dla współczesnych wierzących. Autor przedstawił kilka krytycznych wobec religii uwag wywodzących się z myśli L. Feuerbacha, K. Marxa i F. Nietzschego i odniósł je do pewnych zjawisk współczesnej religijności. Pomimo braku sympatii do wspomnianej ogólnej dezaprobaty wobec religii przez przywołanych myślicieli, autor zakłada, że zasięg ich spojrzenia może być użyteczny dla zidentyfikowania kontrowersyjnych problemów czy patologicznych zjawisk współczesnej  religijności. Niniejszy tekst może być pożyteczny w kwestii odnoszenia klasycznej krytyki religii do pewnych elementów religijnej współczesności.
EN
The article aims to point out the fact that classical criticism of religion can be of benefit to current believers. We have picked some thoughts critical to religion made by L. Feuerbach, K. Marx and F. Nietzsche and related them to certain phenomena of religious presence. Although we do not sympathize with the mentioned authors’ general condemnation of religion, we assume that a range of their views may be useful for identifying problematic, controversial or pathological phenomena in today’s religious scene. Relating classical criticism of religion to certain segments of religious contemporaneousness may be the benefit of this text.
EN
Feuerbach argued that God is not the creator of man, but man is the creator of God. It led him to the conclusion that the secret of theology is anthropology. According to Stirner, Feuerbach proposes, at most, formal reclassification of concepts, still being a religious thinker, because he deifies the species-understood Man. The article is devoted to Stirner’s criticism of Feuerbach and polemic with researchers who perceive Stirner as an amoralistic antihumanist.
4
Content available remote

Marxova filosofická antropologie

60%
EN
The central question of philosophical anthropology is: What is the difference between man and other living beings? While traditionally philosophers attempted to answer this question by pointing to a certain property or ability belonging exclusively to man, Karl Marx performed a theoretical revolution in philosophical anthropology by introducing a new way of how to deal with the problem of anthropological difference. The aim of the paper is, firstly, to analyse the very form, which is common for the answers to the central question of philosophical anthropology, and to describe the dynamic which is characteristic for discussions concerning the anthropological difference. Secondly it depicts Ludwig Feuerbach’s solution to the problem, in which he introduced the concept of a species being. The third step focuses on Marx’s understanding of human nature, in which a central place is given to the concept of species powers. The fourth step sketches Marx’s own solution to the problem of the anthropological difference. In the final step a consideration is given to the underlying motivation of this solution.
EN
The moral reinterpretation of Jesus conducted by Kant, Lessing and Feuerbach, is an interesting matter when it comes to the philosophy of religion. The abovementioned German philosophers claimed that Jesus ought to be understood only as a moral archetype and a revolutionist in morality. This concept arose on the grounds of moral religion which was one of the most interesting ideas of the Enlightenment. Thus, exploring this moral reinterpretation of Jesus is just an excuse to study the concept of moral religion. Despite the fact that this idea is no longer current, it has immense influence on the contemporary philosophy of religion. Therefore, understanding the concept of moral religion can broaden the context of the contemporary discussion.
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.