首页> 外文学位 >A human end to history? Hans Blumenberg, Karl Loewith and Carl Schmitt on secularization and modernity.
【24h】

A human end to history? Hans Blumenberg, Karl Loewith and Carl Schmitt on secularization and modernity.

机译:人类对历史的终结?汉斯·布伦伯格(Hans Blumenberg),卡尔·洛维(Karl Loewith)和卡尔·施密特(Carl Schmitt)论世俗化和现代性。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Against the intellectual backdrop of mounting uncertainty concerning the secular nature of modernity, the present study reconstructs a philosophical debate in Germany, concerning the origins and legitimacy of the modern age as a secular age. This debate was carried out between Hans Blumenberg, Karl Lowith and Carl Schmitt, between about 1950 and 1980. Blumenberg's little-known early work is considered as a preliminary to his best-known book, Die Legitimitat der Neuzeit, in which he attacked Schmitt and Lowith for propounding versions of a theorem whereby modern thought consisted of "secularized" religious matter. It is also shown to develop other core concepts, notably that of human self-assertion, whilst being charted against Blumenberg's own intellectual self-assertion, his struggle to find a distinctive voice. A historical discussion of the concept of secularization is followed by an examination of Lowith's derivation of the progressivist philosophy of history from Christian eschatology, which is shown to be less straightforward than Lowith's popularizers assumed. Lowith's personal confrontation with Blumenberg having been shown to conceal a deeper affinity in the rejection of apocalyptic thought, the focus shifts to Schmitt's political-theological critique of modernity. Schmitt deploys the secularization theorem to call into question the human autonomy on which Blumenberg founds the modern age's claim to legitimacy. Schmitt is shown to argue against what he perceived to be a human plan to terminate history in an earthly utopia, precluding a divine judgment on history and man. The subsequent debate between Blumenberg and Schmitt in letters and texts reveals fundamental differences concerning the status of man with regard to the absolute, with Schmitt's concept of antagonistic, absolute potencies being pitched against Blumenberg's vision of a division of powers, which he discusses in terms of the myth of Prometheus. In arguing for the autonomy of the modern age, Blumenberg is shown to challenge critiques of civilization which avail themselves of religious rhetoric for political ends.
机译:在关于现代的世俗本质的不确定性日益加深的知识背景下,本研究重建了德国关于现代时代作为世俗时代的起源和合法性的哲学辩论。这场辩论是在1950年至1980年之间由汉斯·布卢姆贝格(Hans Blumenberg),卡尔·洛维(Karl Lowith)和卡尔·施密特(Carl Schmitt)进行的。布卢姆贝格(Blumenberg)鲜为人知的早期著作被认为是他最著名的书《 Die Legitimitat der Neuzeit》的开篇,在那本书中,他攻击了施密特(Schmitt)和Lowith用于提出定理的版本,其中现代思想由“世俗化”的宗教物质组成。它也显示出发展了其他核心概念,特别是人类自我主张的概念,同时与布卢门贝格自己的智力自我主张,他寻找独特声音的努力相对立。关于世俗化概念的历史讨论之后,考察了洛威夫从基督教末世论衍生出进步主义历史哲学的事实,事实证明这远不如洛威夫的大众主义者所假定的那样简单。卢威特(Lowith)与布卢门贝格(Blumenberg)的个人对抗已显示出在拒绝世界末日思想方面隐藏了更深的亲和力,重点转移到了施密特对现代性的政治神学批判。施密特运用世俗化定理对人类的自治提出质疑,布卢姆贝格在此基础上发现了现代人对合法性的主张。施密特(Schmitt)被证明反对他认为是人类在地球上的乌托邦中终止历史的计划,排除了对历史和人的神圣判断。随后布隆伯格和施密特之间在文字和文字上的辩论揭示了关于人的绝对地位的根本差异,施密特的对立绝对权力概念与布隆伯格关于分权的观点相提并论。普罗米修斯神话。在主张现代自治时,布卢门贝格(Blumenberg)受到挑战,对文明的批判提出质疑,这些批判利用宗教言论来达到政治目的。

著录项

  • 作者

    Kroll, Joe Paul.;

  • 作者单位

    Princeton University.;

  • 授予单位 Princeton University.;
  • 学科 Literature Germanic.;History European.;Religion Philosophy of.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2010
  • 页码 316 p.
  • 总页数 316
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-17 11:37:28

相似文献

  • 外文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号