Hasil untuk "Philosophy of religion. Psychology of religion. Religion in relation to other subjects"

Halide Aslan, Fatma Kenevir

Toplumsal seyri değiştiren bazı tarihî dönüm noktaları, yalnızca sosyal yapının köklü bir dönüşümüne zemin hazırlamaz aynı zamanda sinema için de bu dönüşümün çeşitli yansımalarının işlenebileceği güçlü ve tükenmez bir anlatı evreni sunar. Cumhuriyet sonrası dönemde, şehirleşme ve modernleşme süreçlerinin hız kazanmasıyla birlikte sinemada hem bir dönüşüm yaşanmış hem de toplumsal değişimi yansıtma işlevi üstlenmiştir. Bu bağlamda, çalışmanın odağını oluşturan Hazal (1979) filmi, Necati Haksun’un hâkimlik deneyimlerinden yola çıkarak kaleme aldığı Kutsal Ceza (1973) romanından uyarlanmış olup, söz konusu dönüşümün sinemadaki izdüşümünü anlamak açısından dikkate değer bir örnek teşkil etmektedir. Dönem olarak Türkiye, 1971 muhtırasının ardından henüz toparlanma sürecindeyken, 1980 darbesine giden süreçte siyasi ve toplumsal çalkantıların etkisi altındaydı. Bu atmosferde çekilen Hazal filmi, kırsal alandaki sosyal yapılanmaları, aşiret-ağalık sistemini, şeyhlik gibi otorite biçimlerinin toplum nezdindeki karşılıklarını, kadının bu toplumdaki konumunu ve ataerkil pazarlığı ve değişime yönelik direnç gibi pek çok içeriği bünyesinde barındırmaktadır. Çalışmada nitel araştırma yöntemi kullanılmış ve film, tematik içerik analizi tekniğiyle incelenmiştir. Ayrıca filmin çekildiği dönemin sosyokültürel yapısını anlamak için de ilgili dönemi ele alan literatür incelemesi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Film, Türkiye’de kırsal kesimde süregelen feodal değerlerin insan hayatı üzerindeki etkilerini din, toplumsal cinsiyet ve değişime direnç üçgeninde sorgulayan bir yapımdır. Bu açıdan film toplumsal değişime yönelik direncin gelenek, din ve ataerkil yapılar üzerinden nasıl meşrulaştırıldığını ortaya koymakta; bu direncin hem kadınlar hem de erkekler üzerinde baskı ve şiddet üretme biçimlerini görünür kılmaktadır.

Neda Rahbar, Muhammad Asghari, Mahmoud Sufiani

In the present article, we are faced with two phenomenological philosophers who, in two different intellectual traditions, namely philosophical hermeneutics and moral phenomenology, have referred to the concept of the Other as the fundamental possibility of the individual. The other, as an ontological and common concept in the thought of Gadamer and Levinas, is the turning point of the condition for the possibility of understanding and ethics. Focusing on the concept of the other, while addressing the points of difference and commonality between Gadamer and Levinas, this article will show that Levinas’s preoccupation with the other as a philosopher refers to the foundations of ethics, and the condition for the possibility of foundations of ethics is encountering the other. In Gadamer, the turning point is the determination of the possibilities of understanding in dialectical and dialogue-oriented relationships. Without the other, in Levinas’s thought, ethics, and moral matter, and in Gadamer’s thought, the process of understanding will not occur in the form of a fusion of horizons. Therefore, this article shows that the other is a common concept between these two philosophers, which both of them cannot avoid in their philosophical analyses of ethics or the process of understanding.   IntroductionThe analysis of ethics is one of the important and innovative achievements of Levinas’s philosophical intellectual structure. Levinas’s concern is to refer to the foundations of morality itself, regardless of institutionalizing the moral in the form of law, and the foundation of morality is in face-to-face relationships with others. Regardless of Levinas’s plan about the concept of the other, Gadamer imagines the determination of understanding in a new way in the face of the other. The other is the comprehensible strain in philosophical hermeneutics, in such a way that the process of understanding is formed by the presence of the other and the face-to-face encounter with it. According to Gadamer, the other is the factor of openness in the process of understanding. The fusion of horizons is the product of openness and mutual encounters in dialogue, which is not possible without the other. The other is the condition of determining the possibility of understanding in each of the parties who are allowed to reveal a part of their being and allow the other to open up and talk. In fact, understanding is a kind of event that is revealed in a two-way conversation in an event-like way. This type of understanding depends on the presence of another. The main focus of the research is the analysis of the concept of the other, which has been done with emphasis on two important works: Truth and method, Totality and infinity.Body & discussionIn general, the process of understanding is a dialogical process, whether the other side of the conversation is a text or a person, the foundation of understanding is formed in a relationship with the other. Determining the other as an independent personality and a different perspective is an ontological determination. The other thinks and becomes meaningful beyond the subject or object and even beyond my intellectual position, it belongs to its own independent world and its own experience. In conversation, it plays a significant role in the production of truth. Openness provides the possibility of dialogue and mutual agreement. In dialogue, the final product is not reproduced. The other condition for the production of the final product is dialogue According to Gadamer, facing the other is facing his world. At the moment of facing me, the other makes his abstract aspects concrete and opens his lived experience to me. He believes that the question-and-answer process is a kind of encounter with the world of experience and openness toward it. According to Gadamer, the process of understanding is the result of dialectical-hermeneutic relations between me (the interpreter) and you (the other). The dialogical relationships that allow each other to enter the other’s history are relationships that are formed based on questions and answers. From Gadamer’s point of view, questions and answers are the opening of a new horizon based on tradition and contemporary history.Levinas phenomenologically refers to the philosophical tradition of the West to reread the process of the formation of the concept of the other. Many commentators and interpreters of Levinas’s works believe that it is possible to determine the foundations of ethics from Levinas’s point of view from face-to-face relationships. The condition for the possibility of morality is to pay attention to others. To describe another concept, Levinas analyzes the negative and positive aspects of this concept. In a negative way, Levinas first answers what the other is not, and for this reason, he criticizes the history of Western metaphysics and the criticism of Husserl and Heidegger’s phenomenology. Positively, the other is relative to me and different from me. The other is beyond subject and object. The other is not subjugated by any concept and recognizes its independent identity. The other and the encounter with him are the conditions for determining fundamental ethics from Levinas’s point of view. Another condition of concreteness refers to another person. According to Levinas, it is the condition for the formation of moral form. He believes that ethics is a kind of double encounter in the context of bilateral relations. Many moral concepts are formed in relation to a concrete other. In Levinas’s genealogy of ethics, we are faced with the presence of the other in a concrete way and with the subjectivity of the subject in an abstract and a priori way. Levinas specifies two approaches with the description of the other in the form of an infinite idea. First of all, there is an infinite gap between the other and the same. This issue shows its foreignness and otherness, its independence, and being true to its essence towards me. Second, it is the determination of another in a concrete or abstract form, which in both cases evokes an identity independent of me.ConclusionAccording to the explanations of the concept of the other in the thought of Gadamer and Levinas, we are faced with two phenomenological philosophers who have paid attention to the ontological aspects of the concept of the other in the fields of philosophical hermeneutics and ethics. In Gadamer’s thought, the other is an ontologically dialectical relationship between I-Thou and the starting point of the conversation process. The fusion of horizons is the turning point of the formation of the relation to the other, which is manifested in another area. The other has its own history, world, tradition, and authority, regardless of the formation of dialogical relationships, and has an independent identity. The other is allowed to share his lived experience in the conversation. The other creates new worlds. The other has opened himself and in return can be self-interpreting and self-revealing. Regardless, the other is the consistency of the complex relationship between language and the world. This form of bilateral relations, which is manifested in the presence of another, is a linguistic form that is the cause of a deep connection between language and the world. The other, whether concrete or abstract, is the turning point of our connection with the world in an ontological way.Regardless of Gadamer’s point of view, Levinas returns to another concept in his new thought project entitled “How to determine the possibilities of ethics.” According to Levinas, finding the foundations of ethics and determining the condition of moral possibilities is in facing the other and in face-to-face relationships. The other is concretely a kind of bilateral encounter which is the basis of many moral events and is manifested abstractly in the form of the subject’s subjectivity. This kind of infinite aspect of the other is revealed in subjectivity is implied in sense. Encountering another in an abstract form within itself is the encounter of the subject’s subjectivity with the sense, and the sense is in the encounter with the other. Sense is the basis of the subjectivity of the subject. Sense is a kind of concrete and visual face-to-face encounter that adds to the importance of determining another. Therefore, both Gadamer and Levinas raise many possibilities about the concept of the other, which shows the importance of this concept in the Western philosophical tradition.

Revista Española de Derecho Canónico

Presentación de autores

إدهام محمد حنش

يُعالِج هذا البحث العلاقة بين فلسفة الفن ومقاصد الشريعة (الضروريات، والحاجيات، والتحسينات) بوصفها قاعدة من قواعد التأصيل المعرفي لبِنْية الفن الإسلامي؛ إذ يُمكِن لهذه العلاقة أنْ تتأسَّس على موضوع علمجمالي مشترك، يُسمّى في الفلسفة عناصرَ الفن، ويُسمّى في التراث العلمي الإسلامي مقاصدَ البصر الجمالية. وإذا طبَّقنا هذه العلاقة على فن الخط الإسلامي بوصفه فناً بصرياً، فقد نستخدم مقاصد الشريعة بوصفها عناصر تأصيلية لهذا الفن الكتابي. ويُمكِن القول: إنَّ فن الخط يتكوَّن من المقاصد الجمالية الآتية: - المقاصد الخطية الضرورية التي تقوم على الخط الـمُجرَّد من أيَّة لواحق كتابية أو لغوية. - المقاصد الخطية الحاجية التي تقوم على الخط ولواحقه الكتابية مثل النقاط، ولواحقه اللغوية مثل علامات الإعراب. - المقاصد الخطية التحسينية التي تقوم على أساس أنَّ النص المخطوط عمل فني مُتكامِل.

Maryam Ardeshir Larijani, Abdollah Abedifar

Practical theology can be defined as theological analysis and interpretation of social and cultural realities and especially human actions, providing suitable theological solutions to human life problems. Lying, as a moral challenge appears in various forms in daily life and needs deep attention. Peter Kreeft, as a Thomist, believes that sometimes lying not only is not bad but also it is permissible. Nonetheless, the circumstances under which lying is permissible can be known by intuition and conscience. Relying on Aristotelian-Thomistic rationalism, he criticizes the doctrine of nominalism, the philosophy of Descartes, and the philosophy of Kant. He claims that they have denied the intuitions of reason (as accepted in the philosophy of Aristotle and Aquinas), and have narrowed the realm of the reason so as a computer program. Nevertheless, the circumstances and intention have considerable importance in Aristotelian-Thomistic rationalism. In defending the permissibility of lying, Kreeft argues that circumstances, good intentions, and moral intuition are factors that can sometimes indicate the permissibility of lying. On the other hand, some objections have been raised to this view, one of which is that it contradicts the teachings of the Church and Catholic theology, and seems replaced the absolute truth in the teachings of Jesus Christ with moral intuition.

Carlin Romano

East Asian philosophy of religion differs from its Western analogue in not focusing on the Judeo‐Christian tradition and core topics that arise out of monotheism, such as the attributes of God and putative proofs of God's existence. It resembles Western philosophy of religion in engaging with such issues as the possibility of an afterlife, heaven and hell, the problem of evil, faith, free will, the status of gods and spirits, the existence of the supernatural, and whether there is a greater‐than‐human authority that humankind should obey or emulate. Like Western philosophy of religion, East Asian philosophy of religion critically assesses religious beliefs – it does not merely articulate them. Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism are the traditions of thought most widely embraced across a variety of East Asian countries. Philosophers interpret all three teachings in both secular and supernatural ways, both criticizing and supporting their evolving beliefs and practices.

Reinhard Hesse

Point of View Reinhard Hesse* Received: 01/05/2019       |       Accepted: 10/07/2019 As human beings do we at all have a common ground for dialogue and mutual understanding? Yes: what we as human beings have in common, is that we can use and understand arguments. In other words: that we are rational beings. 2. Is our capability for argumentation the only ground we have in common as the basis for dialogue and mutual understanding? There is no argumentation against argumentation. Argumentation can´t be transcended. Thus argumentation, more precisely: the capability of argumentation – i.e. reason - is the only ground we have in common as human beings. 3. Does religion play a role in this respect? Isn´t religion superfluous for a rational human being? No, not in the sense Kant has ascribed to it. To know about the boundaries of knowledge (of reason) and to humbly marvel about the miraculous existence of world, life and reason can rightly be seen as the form of religion - as the form of attitude towards the "beyond" - which is adequate (and unavoidable) for a rational being. Religion is the source of truth and ethics if it means: humble acknowledgment of the un-knowable and hence of the fact that in our search for orientation we are relegated to ourselves as fellow human beings, as brothers and sisters.   * Prof. Dr. Dr. Reinhard Hesse, Chair of Philosophy and Ethics (retired), University of Education Freiburg, Germany.    ׀    hesse@ph-freiburg.de 🞕 Hesse, R. (2019). Can Religion be the Basis for Dialogue at the Global Level. The Journal of Philosophical-Theological Research, 21(81), 157۔ 162.  doi: 10.22091/jptr.2019.4315.2113.

Sümeyye Sakarya

Mustafa Temel

İslamofobi, son zamanlarda akademik çalışmalarda sıkça ele alınan bir konu olarak görünürlük kazanmıştır. Bu çalışmalar arasında ise medya ve İslamofobi ilişkiselliğini ele alan araştırmaların yoğunluğu dikkat çekmektedir. Çalışma kapsamında İletişim, Sosyoloji, Felsefe, İlahiyat alanlarında medya ve İslamofobi ilişkisini ele alan çalışmalar değerlendirilmiştir. Bu kapsamda, perspektif sunması açısından, öncelikli olarak uluslararası literatürde konu ile ilgili yer alan akademik metinlerin genel bir çerçevesi çizilmiş ve çalışmalarda karşılaşılan problemler yorumlanmıştır. Bu sonuçlarla birlikte; Türkiye’de geleneksel medya ve İslamofobi, sinema ve İslamofobi, sosyal medya/dijital oyunlar ve İslamofobi meselelerini ele alan tez, makale ve kitapların analizi yapılmıştır. Betimsel araştırma yönteminin kullanıldığı çalışmanın sonucunda, genel olarak medya ve İslamofobi ilişkisine odaklanan araştırmaların Türkiye’de oldukça geç başladığı ve konunun uluslararası literatüre göre yeterli düzeyde olmadığı belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca uluslararası literatürdeki ve Türkiye’deki medya ve İslamofobi çalışmalarının değerlendirilmesi sonucunda, bu çalışmaların felsefi yaklaşım problemi, tarihsel perspektif yoksunluğu ve kavramsallaştırma sorunu gibi birtakım problemler ihtiva ettiği ortaya çıkmıştır.

Józef Figiel

nie dotyczy

Christos Orfanidis

James Murphy

A review of recent research suggests that academic and popular distinctions between “religion” and “spirituality” are unfounded. Working from a meaning systems perspective, it is argued that recognizing that “religious” and “spiritual” are part of the same broad category does not go far enough. It is argued that a wider perspective that considers the interplay of many different cultural and social factors on both beliefs and practices is more useful. This broadening of the multi-level, interdisciplinary paradigm to examine all existential cultures, including the secular and non-religious, offers the potential to better understand the complexity and diversity of lived religion. Increased use of idiographic methodologies and a more reflective approach to the constructs used in nomothetic methodologies are advocated as a way to advance the field and better explore beliefs and practices in a more ecologically valid way.

Maryam Barooti, Ghasem Kakaie, Reza Akbarian

In the majority of his works, Tabatabaie takes the side of cataphaticism about divine attributes. But the theory is presented in his different works in different ways. There are at list 3 ways in which he has presented the theory including (1) verticality of meaning regardless of instances, (2) verticality of meaning with respect to expression of instances, and (3) ungradedness of meaning with respect to the goal and the common function. In this article, we shall try to explain and analyze the three models, and give examples of each one from his works. Notwithstanding that cataphaticism have advantages and transcends the finitude-oriented natural language and makes use of it with regard to God, it suffers from noteworthy shortcomings.

Ismail Patel

Piotr Kochanek

nie dotyczy

Paweł Wygralak

The article deals with the problem of the responsibility of a poor person for the received gift. Analysis of selected writings of Christian antiquity reveals that every poor person who asks the rich for assistance is responsible to God for the received gift. All those who appeal to the benevolence of the rich and extort their help will answer at God’s judgment. In turn a poor person who is in real need is God’s altar. The alms given to the poor are a sacrifice that the rich offer on the altar of God himself. This confers a supernatural dimension upon alms. Moreover, between the benefactor and the recipient the relation of a reciprocal exchange of goods is established. The poor person who is supported with material goods by a rich person reciprocates with spiritual gifts: intercessory prayer and gratitude that continue even after the benefactor’s death. Thus, the rich person who receives the spiritual gifts benefits more than the poor person because in return for perish­able material goods he is given eternal life.

Antoni Swoboda

L’articolo e composto di tre parti: nella prima parte presentiamo le opinioni di Agostino confermanti la verita Dio e creatore del matrimonio che e un bene. Questo bene non £ sta to distrutto dal peccato originalie, non lo puó farę un peccato di adulterio e di divorzio. Matrimonio resta indissolubile nel caso di mancanza della vita coniugale e anche di infecondia da qualsiasi parte. La seconda parte presenta la dottrina di Vescovo di Ippona sul tema del Sacra- meritum Magnum. Per nostro 1’autore il modello della indissolubilita del matrimonio e un legame di Israele, Popolo di Dio, eon il Signore, il mistero della incarnazione e il legame di Cristo eon la Chiesa. La terza parte e stata dedicata ai chiarimenti di Agostino sul tema della presenza di Cristo alle nozze di Cana. Essa conferma la verita dalia quale risulta Dio ha creato il matrimonio e per questa ragione esso e un bene. La presenza del nostro Signore a Cana mette anche in rilievo la verita su di nozze di Cristo eon la Chiesa (magnum sacramentum). Cosi il Vescovo di Ippona ha sottolineato una differenza fra magnum sacramentum di Cristo e della Chiesa e illarum nuptiarum celebrati a Cana su modello delTamore di Cristo per la Chiesa in cui lo sposo e soltano una figura di Cristo e il suo matrimonio un simbolo della unita di Cristo eon la Chiesa.

Andrzej Bober

in memoriam

Józef Naumowicz, Stanisław Longosz

bibliografia