首页> 外文学位 >THEOLOGY IN THE SHADOW OF MARX: THE THEORY-PRACTICE RELATIONSHIP IN THE POLITICAL THEOLOGY OF JOHANN BAPTIST METZ AND IN THE LIBERATION THEOLOGY OF HUGO ASSMANN.
【24h】

THEOLOGY IN THE SHADOW OF MARX: THE THEORY-PRACTICE RELATIONSHIP IN THE POLITICAL THEOLOGY OF JOHANN BAPTIST METZ AND IN THE LIBERATION THEOLOGY OF HUGO ASSMANN.

机译:马克思影子中的神学:约翰·巴普特·梅茨的政治神学和雨果·阿斯曼的解放神学中的理论—实践关系。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

This is a Marxist analysis of Metz (FRG) and Assmann (Brazil), who seek to assimilate Marx's definition of the theory-practice relationship (TPR) within their own constructions of theological theory.;The TPR issue is at the heart of Metz's political theology. The second chapter points out that Metz tries to avert the eventual collapse of the Christian specificum into the dialectics of social practice by relying upon Kantian-inspired epistemology. As a result, the "primacy of praxis" he recognizes is essentially the religious praxis of conversion and discipleship. Under the guise of praxiological vocabulary, Marx's notion of practice is transformed into its opposite--religious consciousness has primacy over material social practice. His organic relation to Kant demonstrates that he cannot assimilate the Marxian TPR.;Chapter Three shows how Assmann absorbs central Marxist-Leninist tenets. He insists on the primacy of social practice in the TPR as defined by Marx. Since this requires the decryption of religious consciousness in terms of its class essence, how can its claims be secured? Assmann contends that the mystery of self-giving love that grounds practice transcends scientific cognition, and that the divine fiat alone can abolish necessity and secure freedom in the eschaton. From a Marxist standpoint this project is incoherent, for his "ineffable mystery" is a purely formal notion, and his idea of God requires a metaphysical separation of necessity and freedom into antinomies that only a deus ex machina can resolve. Assmann, while accepting Marxist science and its TPR to a great extent, ultimately renders it inoperable. The residual idealism of "Christian Marxism" violates the core of Marx's scientific method.;The first chapter traces the dialectical transition of Marx's understanding of the TPR in four phases from 1837-47, when he abandoned Left-Hegelian praxiology to consolidate the historical materialist definition of the TPR as the theoretical base for his scientific method of analysis. Subsequent writings are selected to illustrate the intrinsic link that obtains between his dialectical TPR and his scientific method. It is shown how social practice has the primacy in his scientific research, social theory and revolutionary action.
机译:这是对梅斯(FRG)和阿斯曼(巴西)的马克思主义分析,他们试图在自己的神学理论建构中吸收马克思对理论与实践关系(TPR)的定义。TPR问题是梅斯政治的核心神学。第二章指出,梅斯依靠康德主义的认识论,试图将基督教的特殊化的最终崩溃避免为社会实践的辩证法。结果,他认识到的“实践优先”本质上是conversion依和门徒训练的宗教实践。在古生物学词汇的幌子下,马克思的实践观念被转变为相反的观念-宗教意识在物质社会实践上居于首位。他与康德的有机关系表明他不能吸收马克思的TPR。第三章说明了阿斯曼如何吸收马克思列宁主义的中心信条。他坚持马克思定义的TPR中社会实践的首要地位。既然这需要根据其阶级本质来解密宗教意识,那么如何确保其主张呢?阿斯曼认为,以实践为基础的自我奉献之爱的奥秘超越了科学认知,仅凭神圣的法令就可以消除必然性并确保自由。从马克思主义者的角度来看,这个项目是不连贯的,因为他的“无法解释的奥秘”纯粹是形式上的概念,而他对上帝的观念要求将必要性和自由形而上地分离成对立的矛盾,只有自然界才能解决。阿斯曼在很大程度上接受马克思主义科学及其TPR的同时,最终使其无法操作。 “基督教马克思主义”的剩余唯心主义违反了马克思科学方法的核心。第一章追溯了马克思从1837-47年的四个阶段中对TPR的理解的辩证性转变,当时他放弃了左派黑格尔的古生物学来巩固历史唯物主义者。 TPR的定义是其科学分析方法的理论基础。选择随后的著作来说明他的辩证性TPR和他的科学方法之间的内在联系。它显示了社会实践在他的科学研究,社会理论和革命行动中如何具有首要地位。

著录项

  • 作者

    SAVOLAINEN, JAMES WILLIAM.;

  • 作者单位

    Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago.;

  • 授予单位 Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago.;
  • 学科 Religion Philosophy of.
  • 学位 Th.D.
  • 年度 1982
  • 页码 687 p.
  • 总页数 687
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 植物学;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
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