http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 발행기관 : Univ. of St. Andrews (검색결과 2 건)
-
The relation of christianity to the ethical sphere in the thought of Soren Kierkegaard
이승구 Univ. of St. Andrews 1990 해외박사
이 논문은 키에르케고르 사상에서의 윤리적 영역과 기독교의 관계에 대한 연구이다. 윤리적 영역과 기독교적 영역 사이의 연속성을 강조하는 키에르케 고르 연구가들의 일반적인 동향에 반해서 나는 이 연구에서 키에르케고르의 저작에는 이 두 영역 사이에 불연속성에 대한 매우 강한 강조가 있음을 드러 내었다. 나는 먼저 제1장에서 윤리적 영역에 있는 사람의 윤리인 "합리주의 적 윤리"와 기독교 윤리 사이에 차이와 비연속성이 있음을 밝혔다. 이를 드 러내기 위해서 첫째로 나는 『공포와 전률』에서 조차도 신앙에서 나오는 새 로운 윤리에 대한 시사가 있음을 드러내었다. 이 새로운 윤리에 대한 더 분 명한 묘사를 찾기 위해서 나는 키에르케고르의 다른 저작인 『사랑의 역사』 와 『철학적 단편』과 『기독교의 훈련』에 대한 검토를 통해서 키에르케고르 가 말하는 기독교 윤리는 사랑의 윤리요, 제자도의 윤리인데 이는 단순한 윤 리적 제자도나 반(半)펠라기안주의와는 다름을 드러내었다. 제2장에서 나는 자아 됨의 문제에 대한 고찰에로 나아갔다. 이 장에서 나 는 먼저 『이것이냐, 저것이냐』 제2권에 나타난 그 스스로의 능력으로 자신 이려고 노력하는 자율적인 윤리적 자아와는 대조적으로 『죽음에 이르는 병』 에 잘 드러난 기독교적 자아는 그 자아 됨에 있어서 절대적으로 신에게 의존 하는 자아임을 드러내었다. 제2장의 두번째 절에서는 "신과 관련하여 자아가 된다"는 구절에 대한 소크라테스적인 이해에 대한 검토와 소크라테스적인 내 면성에 대한 분석을 통해서 나는 종교성 A에 있는 사람이 기독교적 하나님과 는 다른 하나님 또는 다른 신 개념을 가지고 있고 이것이 결국 기독교적 자아 됨에 대한 이해와 종교성 A에 있는 사람의 자아 됨에 대한 이해의 차이의 근 본적 이유라는 것을 밝혔다. 제3장에서는 인식론의 차이의 문제를 다루었다. 먼저 나는 키에르케고르의 다양한 익명의 저작들에서 이끌어낸 자연인의 인식 론적 전제와 입장을 키에르케고르의 후기 저작들에서 이끌어 낸 기독교 인식 론적 입장과 대조하였다. 그 후에는 키에르케고르의 『수기』에 대한 검토를 통해서 키에르케고르는 자연인의 인식론적 입장과 그리스도인의 인식론적 입 장을 적절히 섞어서 생각하는 것이 불가피하고 적절하다고 양보하는 일은 결 코 하지 않음을 드러내었다. This is a study about the relationship between the ethical sphere and Christianity in Kierkegaard thought. Against the tendency among Kierkegaard scholars to emphasize the continuity between the ethical sphere and Christianity, I tried to show through this study that in Kierkegaard writings there was a very strong emphasis on the discontinuity between these two spheres. I started by asking whether there is a difference and discontinuity between vrationalistic ethics (the ethics of the Person who is in the ethical sphere) and Christian ethics. (Chapter One) Firstly, in the examination of Abraham act of faith in J&an and Tne&Ung, I showed that even in this book there was a hint of a new ethics which follows from faith. To answer the question as to whether there is a clear description of new ethics, I turned to hlorks of Loma. In the examination of hook, I identified the ethics of Christian love, and assert the ethics of Christian love was different and discontinuous this from merely human love. In the next section, I examined Christian ethics as the ethics of Christian discipleship. Through an examination of some parts of and I argued that Christian ethics, as understood by Kierkegaard, is different from merely ethical discipleship and semi-Pelagianixn. Throughout this chapter discussion I argued that Christian ethics was not only different from the ethics of the ethical person, but also antithetical to it. For ethics based on merely human love was criticized severely in and the merely ethical discipleship and semi-Pelagian discipleship were regarded as misunderstandings of Christian ethics. I turned, in the second chapter, to the consideration of the problem of becoming oneself, In this chapter, I firstly examined the second volume of and argued that the ethical self was an autonomous self which tried to be itself by itself. In contrast, the Christian self is totally dependent on God in its becoming itself. I drew this conclusion from an examination of xilnsicknessnntQDsath. In this examination, I argued that even though there were some ambiguities in this book, despair as sin was clearly understood only by the Christian who believed in the forgiveness of sin by God and had faith. Only the existing individual who is in faith is regarded as overcoming the despair and having become . I pointed out that in their understandings of the eternal, of the power of self, these two understandings of the self were different from one another. In the last section of this second chapter, I raised the question of the understanding of the self of the Person in religiousness A. By an examination of the Socratic understanding of the phrase can be oneself in relation to an analysis of Socratic inwardness, I argued that those in religiousness A had a different God, or different conception Of God from the Christian God. I also argued that this difference between their ~respective conceptions of God was the fundamental reason for the difference between the Christian understanding of becming a self and that of the person.in religiousness A. In the third chapter, I examined the problem of epistemology. Firstly, I drew out, from Kierkegaardts various pseudonymous writings, the presuppositions and epistemological standpoint of the natural man. Then, I compared this with the Christian epistemological standpoint which was drawn from Kierkegaard later writings, I argued that in his later writings there were very clear indications that the Christian has an epistemological standpoint which is substantially different from that of the natural man. I turned then to an examination of Kierkegaard journal entries, and showed that even though he himself could not always think in the way which he asserted that the Christian should think, Kierkegaard did not compromise and say that it was proper and inevitable for us to mix the Christian standpoint and the natural man standpoint. Rather, he strongly resisted the idea that such a mixture was Christian. Next I returned to one of Kierkegaard early pseudonymous writings, s m, to show that Kierkegaard ultimate intention in writing this book can be interpreted in a manner consistent with his later writings. I argued that even though, because of the ambiguity in this took, there are other ways of interpreting it, it is ,also possible that the Socratic standpoint. and the Christian standpoint are two exclusive Views of reality as a whole, and that even in this book Kierkegaard tried to show the difference and discontinuity of the Socratic (humanist) standpoint and the Christian standpoint. According to this interpretation of Kierkegaard intention, he who has the Christian point of view should see and consider everything from the Christian standpoint; for him, there is no autonomous realm to be thought of from the (humanistic) standpoint. Based upon this examination, I concluded that for Kierkegaard Christian ethics follows on from Christian theology (his Christian theistic faith), and the understanding of becoming oneself also follows on from the Christian stance of faith (so that the Christian self is regarded as the W,keological self, and his epistemological standpoint is also Christian. In this sense, there is a wide gap between the Christian sphere and the ethical sphere, or to put this another way, their direction is different: one is theistic and one humanistic. For Kierkegaard, to be a Christian thus involves a change in one ethics, in one understanding of becoming oneself, and in one epistemological standpoint. Then, I drew out scme implications for Kierkegaard theory of the existence-spheres SS a whole and suggested some implications for Christian theology today.
-
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
