This incisive study concerns the ways in which theological claims about creation's original and final perfection shape social ethics. Schuurman argues that prominent 20th century theologians Emil Brunner and Jurgen Moltmann wrongly envision the eschaton as radically discontinuous with creation, and that this discontinuity coheres with serious inadequacies in their social ethics. His thesis is that continuity between creation and eschaton is necessary if Christian social ethics is to avoid dualistic understandings of love and justice, personal and impersonal (...) values, church and world, revolutionism and conservatism. Schuurman establishes theological groundwork for a social ethic that calls for continuous transformation of social institutions and structures.". (shrink)

I present an outline of the Omega Point theory, which is a model for an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, evolving, personal God who is both transcendent to spacetime and immanent in it, and who exists necessarily. The model is a falsifiable physical theory, deriving its key concepts not from any religious tradition but from modern physical cosmology and computer science; from scientific materialism rather than revelation. Four testable predictions of the model are given. The theory assumes that thinking is a purely (...) physical process of the brain, and that personality dies with the brain. Nevertheless, I show that the Omega Point theory suggests a future universal resurrection of the dead very similar to the one predicted in the Judeo‐Christian‐Islamic tradition. The notions of “grace” and the “beatific vision” appear naturally in the model. (shrink)

The author aims to retrieve and creatively develop a strand of Christian thought, stretching from early Christian interpretations of biblical data through the hagiographies of the saints into modern Christian thought, which provides a foundation for concern over the welfare of nonhuman animals. To provide the framework for this strand, the author explores the theology of Irenaeus of Lyons and Ephrem the Syrian. First, he considers their positions regarding the place of nonhuman animals in protology and eschatology. Then, he notes (...) their view that the created order is in via toward its eschatological consummation. With this framework in place, he turns to other voices in the Christian tradition, including the hagiographies of the saints, in order to further develop the framework. Ultimately, the author suggests that, within this particular strand of Christian thought, the further a human being progresses along the path of redemption, the more he or she ought to serve as a prolepsis of eschatological hope, which includes peaceful relationships between humans and animals. (shrink)

Was Jesus Christ a deluded prophet who expected an imminent collapse of the world followed by the dawning of a kingdom that has never eventuated? Some who reject Christianity think that he was, and as a consequence are highly suspicious about any other claims that are attributed to Jesus. However, other interpretations of the apparently eschatological pronouncements in the New Testament exist, one of which is realized eschatology, this being the idea, roughly, that the kingdom or reign of God was (...) realized in or through the ministry of Jesus itself. Debates surrounding the competing interpretations of New Testament eschatology raise fascinating issues, both exegetical and conceptual. Exploring some of these issues from the perspective of philosophy of religion, informed by theological and biblical studies, this article argues that realized eschatology is a religious option that, contrary to common criticisms, is neither incoherent nor implausibly reductive. (shrink)

The German rediscovery of messianism in the first decade of the twentieth century gave voice to a new way of thinking about the utopian future that privileged redemption in its denunciation of progressivist notions of Enlightenment rationality. Profoundly uneasy with the growing anti-liberal and anti-Semitic upper classes of the Weimar Republic, the German-Jewish “generation of 1914” drew inspiration from the figure of the Messiah in answer to the nineteenth-century utopian-socialist dream of scientific rationality. “Messianism of our era,” as Gershom Scholem (...) wrote, “proves its immense force precisely in this form of the revolutionary apocalypse, and no longer in the form…. (shrink)

The problem of Nishida Kitaro's historical philosophy and an introduction to the psychedelic paradigm -- The Zen nexus between Nishida Kitaro and modern psychedelic experience -- Experience and the self: the early phase of Nishida's thought (1911-1931) -- Nishida Kitaro's historical world (1931-1945) -- A psychedelic paradigm of history -- Hallucinating the end of history: reflections on myth, the eschaton and the problem of overcoming modernity.

Este artículo investiga, en cuanto hilo conductor, las transformaciones de la noción de éschaton en la apocalíptica judía y cristiana desde el punto de la vista de la teología de la técnica, además de su tránsito a la filosofía de la tecnología de Günther Anders. El propósito de ello es mostrar cómo, con excepciones y variaciones, la relación entre escatología y apocalipsis se desactiva doblemente, tanto en el cristianismo como en la modernidad tecnológica, para continuar como un hiato que hereda (...) de manera compleja y utópica, y ya por completo secularizado, el programa transhumanista del mejoramiento tecnológico de la biología humana. (shrink)

The scope of Jürgen Moltmann’s theological explorations is vast. Greater still is the quantity of secondary literature written about his theology. Yet there is an absence of literature regarding his theology of animals. In this article, I examine Moltmann’s theological framework in order to establish his potential contribution to animal theology. I further critically delineate and constructively develop the ethics Moltmann derives from his theological explorations. Ultimately, I suggest that Moltmann’s contribution to animal theology is highly impactful, providing a solid (...) theological ground for the superiority of the practice of vegetarianism and laws against unnecessary hunting. (shrink)

Taking my cue from Hannah's Child: A Theologian's Memoir, I discuss the struggles Stanley Hauerwas experiences in trying to identify a place he can call home. The memoir suggests that his academic endeavours have taken Hauerwas far from his hometown, Pleasant Grove, Texas. The book shows, however, that places such as Pleasant Grove function for Hauerwas as anticipations of the heavenly eschaton. To suggest that Christians have no home here on earth does not take into account sufficiently the “real (...) presence” of the heavenly future in everyday realities, such as Stanley's love of Paula Gilbert and a person's appropriate affection of his country. (shrink)

With this study, we seek to contribute to the theological discussion regarding the nature and the meaning of the Christian eschaton. We will argue that the dynamics of God’s reign provide a hermeneutic key to Jesus’ ‘eschatological expectation’. It is not possible to grasp the full meaning of Jesus’ urgent expectation of the end unless one realises that God’s action is always eschatological. That is to say, right from creation, God is always acting in history in an eschatological way, (...) though only in Jesus does this action reach its ultimate goal. By critically examining the multifaceted views of selected contemporary theologians, we will suggest that Jesus’ eschatological expectation may be adequately interpreted only in light of God’s ‘eschatological reign’. In this context, the tension between the already present and not yet fully realised dimensions of God’s reign appears as a promising hermeneutic key to Jesus’ teaching in general and his eschatological expectation in particular. The article consists of two sections. Firstly, we will give a brief account of the dynamics of God’s reign, interpreted according to the ‘middle way’ between consistent and realised eschatology. In the second part, our focus will be on the eschatological expectation: its development in the Jewish tradition; on how Jesus applied, or rather re-appropriated, it in his mission; and whether or not his emphasis on the imminence of an eschaton was a result of him being mistaken. (shrink)

The present article intends to approach as its theme the encounter between the religions in the perspective of the hope in Jürgen Moltmann. In the first moment, it is noticed that, due to the serious problems that affect today’s society, there is the necessity of having a cooperation among the different religions, which will only be possible if there is a perspective of change based on hope in the transformation of the current reality Secondly, there is the discussion about the (...) need for a theology of hope that changes our thoughts and builds new perspectives from faith, and that strengthens the collaborative bonds of all those who seek the same ideal of building an alternative world, where justice and peace are its base. A third moment will be based on the following question: from the eschaton, what other world is it possible to build? As a thesis, Moltmann’s thought will be the reason to understand that in the eschaton what unites prevails over what divides, for the urgencies of transformation overcome divergences, being fundamental the perspective of hope as lens from which it is possible a collaborative encounter between religions. (shrink)

The eschaton, or the future of the Kingdom, profoundly affects the Christian stance in ethics, especially when applied to the complex problems of the modern world.

This article explores the phenomenology of time and eschatology in the thought of Jean-Yves Lacoste, including his recent book on the philosophy of history. Lacoste’s idea of “the hidden present” is examined within the context of his broader theological and philosophical framework, with a particular focus on the way it addresses the intersection of temporality and eternity. Human temporality is characterized by finitude and death, which are interpreted both philosophically—under the influence of Heidegger’s philosophy—and theologically. Using Husserlian and Heideggerian concepts, (...) Lacoste proposes a theologically inspired conceptual network: phenomenological reduction versus theological reduction, world versus creation, death versus resurrection, care (Sorge) versus eschatological restlessness, and time versus eschaton. All of these describe the liturgical experience of man before God and the possibility of an eternity which, from the point of view of the world and of our experience in the world, can only take on the ever-provisional figure of anticipation. The present article argues for the existence of a theological paradox of eschatology in the writings of the French phenomenologist: even if eschatology is only anticipated, the liturgical man, situated before God (coram Deo), experiences it in an incomplete and apophatic manner. (shrink)

The possibility of in-breakings of God in science is discussed. A realist philosophy of science is used as a framework in which new paradigms are seen as providing ever better approximations to the true underlying structure of nature, which will be revealed in the eschaton. It is argued that ecology–the study of the earth as a whole–cannot be treated as a natural science because there can be no paradigms for understanding the earth as a whole. Instead technology is used (...) as a means for interacting with God through nature. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:SCRIPTURAL GROUNDS FOR CONCRETE MORAL NORMS 1. Is JJ1oral Theology Really Theology? 0 BE CHRISTIAN theology moral theology ought to be firmly grounded in the Bible as understood in the living tradition of the Church. Yet the moralist who asks help from the biblicist today is to be met with a host cf objections.1 I will mention eight I have encountered: l) Attempts to develop a biblical theology unified (...) by some central concept such as promise fulfillrnent, salvation history, or liberation have all broken down. The Bible contains many diverse, even contradictory, or at least dialectically opposed theologies and ethical To harmonize them is to distort them.2 1 See Charles E. Curran and Richard A. McCormick, S.J., eds., The Use of Scriptures in Moral Theology (Readings in Moral Theology No. 4. New York: Paulist, 1984) for a representative selection of essays, and Robert J. DaLy, S.J. in cooperation with.J. A. Fischer, C.M., T. J. Keegan, O.P., A..J. Tambasco, L. J. Topel, S.J., and F. E. Schuele, Christian Biblical Ethfos Ji'rorn Biblical Revelation to Contemporary Christian Praxis, Method and Content {New York: Paulist, 1984) for a more systematic argument.. In these notes these will be referred to as US and CBE. See also William C. Spohn, S.J., What Are '!'hey Saying About Bcriptiire a,nd Ethics? (New York: Paulist, 1983) ; David Kelsey, Uses of Scripture in Recent Theology (Philadelphia : Fortress, 1975); and Bruce C. Birch and Larry Rasmussen, Bible and Ethics in the Christian Life (l\finneapolis: Augsburg, 1976). Valuable hermeneutical suggestions ·will be found in Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Moral Teaching of the New Testarnent (New York: Seabury, 1973) and the two works of Pierre Grelot, Sens Oh1·etien de l'Ancien Testarnent 2nd ed. (Paris: Desclee, 1962) and Problemes de ilforale JJ'ondarnentale: Un eclairar1e biblique (Paris: Cerf, 1982) and the essa\)'s in :M:. Gilbert, J. L'Hour and,J. Scharbet, Morale et Ancien Testament, (Universite Catholique du Louvain, 1976). 2 See H. G. Reventlow, Problems of Old Testament Theology in the Twen· tieth Cent·ury (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985, pp. 44,65; 125-133, and 1 BENEDICT M. ASHLEY, O.P. 2) The predominant literary form of the Bible which holds it together is narrative. How then can we draw moral principles from such narratives? To treat them as cautionary tales with an obvious moral does great injustice to their psychological richness and moral ambiguity.3 3) The Bible primarily uses not a literal but a symbolic type of language appropriate to the mysteries it reveals. These symbols or images can mold ethical attitudes and affections but they cannot be reduced to literal concrete moral norms without danger of distortion.4 4) Granted that both Testaments contain many prescriptive statements, they are so embedded in their historical contexts and so related to situations that are now obsolete, that it is impossible to believe they oblige us today. Can we really believe that women must be veiled (I Cor 11: 10) or that slaves should obey their masters (Ti 2: 9)? 5 5) The early Church, and perhaps Jesus himself, expected the eschaton within a lifetime. Consequently, the New Testament provides only an " interim ethics " which is useless as a guide in a continuing sinful world.6 6) We read in Ephesians 2: 15 that Jesus "in his own flesh John H. Hayes and Frederick Prussner, Old Testament Theology: Its Nature and Development (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985), especially pp. 254-279 for a discussion of the search for a unifying concept for the Bible and its present status. s James A. Fischer, C.M., "Story and Image", CBE, pp. 156-169. 4 CBE, pp. 289-295. 5 Thus James M. Gustafson, in an influential article, "The Place of Scripture in Christian Ethics: A Methodological Study" (US, pp. 151-177) distinguishes the uses of Scripture as moral law, as moral ideal, as moral analogy, and finally what he calls its "loose" use to inspire reflection on current problems. He is especially critical of the first method and gives preference to the last. s" To put the matter most sharply, Jesus does not provide a valid ethics for today. His... (shrink)

The Enarrationes in Psalmos are an important source for understanding the Augustinian theology of desire, linking it to his systematic theology and his pastoral practice. In this paper I illustrate by overviewing the expositions on Psalms 11 (12), 12 (13), 23 (24), and 26 (27). These Psalms teach us to love, trust, and seek God only, a failure to do which marks the Donatist schism. Augustine mingles ideas from pagan philosophy’s quest for eudaimonia or beata vita—the good, happy, and blessed (...) life—with biblical ideas. We want a stable happiness, and we must pursue wisdom; we can find stability in the rock that is Christ, to follow whom is to pursue wisdom rightly. Our desires must be converted to God, the only complete and perfect good and the source of eternal happiness, whom we must single-mindedly pursue with prayer and faith. While we must desire the eschaton and look to no earthly satisfaction, earthly goods may be received as gifts from God. One thing we can learn from studying the Enarrationes is how closely connected are the ideas of right love, the right church, and the right end; all three go together in Augustine’s theology. (shrink)

Throughout the midrash Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer , motifs are recycled to connect primordial time to the eschaton. In this paper, I read passages on the well “created at twilight of the Sixth Day” in light of Bakhtin's notion of “chronotope” . The author of PRE disengages the itinerant well from its traditional association with the desert sojourn and links it, instead, to the foundation stone of the world at the Temple Mount. The midrash reflects the influence of Islamic legends (...) about the “white stone” around which the Dome of the Rock was built . Over the course of the discussion, PRE is understood in terms of the genre “narrative midrash” and compared to classical rabbinic literature in order to illustrate changes in both form and content arising from the author's apocalyptic eschatology. (shrink)

Prospettivismo e rimitizzazione : Habermas interprete di Nietzsche -- Dioniso, il Crocifisso : Bloch interprete di Nietzsche -- L'eterno nell'attimo : il ritorno e l'eschaton : Nietzsche e Bloch, un confronto postumo.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Report on the Ninth European Network of Buddhist-Christian Studies Conference:"Hope: A Form of Delusion? Buddhist and Christian Perspectives"Elizabeth J. Harris, President of the NetworkCan we hope in a world that is shot through with suffering? Should hope be shunned as a form of attachment? Should we affirm our hope or let go of it? And, if we embrace hope, what should we hope for and what can inspire us? (...) Between sixty and seventy people, from sixteen countries, came together to address questions such as these at the ninth conference of the European Network of Buddhist-Christian Studies, held in glorious weather at Liverpool Hope University in England, between 30 June and 4 July 2011.At the heart of the conference were ten keynote presentations on five crucial aspects of the theme of hope: "Hope and the Critique of Hope," "Hope in Pastoral Situations," "Embodiments of Hope," "Hope in Situations of Hopelessness: Engaged Buddhism and Liberation Theology," and "Eschatologies of Hope." Dr. Sybille Fritsch-Oppermann (Church of Southern Hesse) gave the introductory lecture, which suggested that hope can be seen both as a utopian ideal within and beyond living religions, and a working hypothesis, through which humans can strive toward truth and transcendence.Each theme was addressed from a Buddhist and a Christian perspective, followed by a plenary to enable dialogue between the speakers, and between speakers and participants. Addressing the first theme, "Hope and the Critique of Hope," from a Buddhist perspective, Richard Gombrich (Balliol College, Oxford) robustly argued that hope was not a category relevant to Theravada Buddhism, distinguishing between hope and confidence, and hope and expectation. Werner Jeanrond (Glasgow University), taking the Christian perspective, suggested that a critical theology of hope—an inter-hope dialogue—is necessary, within a critique of other key concepts such as salvation, faith, and love. [End Page 135]Within the session titled "Hope in Pastoral Situations," Dr. Hiroshi Munehiro Niwano (Rissho Kosei-kai, Japan) focused on Rissho Kosei-kai's pastoral work, most movingly its response to the recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan. Notto Thelle (Oslo University), speaking from a Christian viewpoint, sensitively explored pastoral situations caused by life experiences that seem to question and make a mockery of hope, drawing on decades of Buddhist-Christian encounter. Peggy Morgan (Mansfield College, Oxford), addressing the third theme, "Embodiments of Hope," concretized her brief by focusing on a contemporary embodiment of hope capable of emboldening Christians: Rosemary Radford Ruether and her listening dialogue with Buddhism. Mitsuya Dake (Ryukoku University, Japan), on the other hand, chose Amida Buddha as his empowering embodiment of the wisdom, compassion, and non-dualism that lies at the heart of Buddhism, focusing on Shinran's understanding.The theme "Hope in Situations of Hopelessness" was opened to the public in an evening session. Sallie King (James Madison University, USA), using examples such as the Sarvodaya Movement in Sri Lanka and the Dalai Lama's peace work, argued that Buddhism is "loaded" with hope, from an Engaged Buddhist perspective. Buddhist hope, at one level, is an amalgam of acceptance, lawful change, and effort. At another level, it is the conviction that everyone has the potential to change and that truth has power. Sathianathan Clarke (Wesley Theological College, Washington, D.C.) movingly examined Dalit liberation theology, suggesting that hope within this context could be seen as a proxy topos that extends faith into life, an alter-wisdom where love can enrich life, and an energy, a verb, leading to transformative action.Addressing the last theme, "Eschatologies of Hope," Anthony Kelly (Australian Catholic University) recognized a contemporary crisis of hope and, distinguishing between hope as an emotion and hope as a virtue, explored a paradox: that Christian hope is rooted in the resurrection of the crucified Jesus but that this event is described in a varied rhetoric of negations. Justin Ritzinger (Oberlin College, USA), noting that endings are hard to find in Buddhist literature, examined the coming of Maitreya, the future Buddha, as a possible candidate for a Buddhist eschaton. He concluded that the similarities to Christian eschatology are superficial, with the exception of a contemporary reinvention of the Maitreyan tradition in China.In addition to invited keynote speakers, a... (shrink)

Translated by Drew S. Burk and Anthony Paul Smith. Excerpted from Struggle and Utopia at the End Times of Philosophy , (Minneapolis: Univocal Publishing, 2012). THE END TIMES OF PHILOSOPHY The phrase “end times of philosophy” is not a new version of the “end of philosophy” or the “end of history,” themes which have become quite vulgar and nourish all hopes of revenge and powerlessness. Moreover, philosophy itself does not stop proclaiming its own death, admitting itself to be half dead (...) and doing nothing but providing ammunition for its adversaries. With our sights set on clearing up this nuance, we differentiate philosophy as an institutional entity, and the philosophizability of the World and History, of “thought-world,” which universalizes the narrow concept of philosophy and that of “capital.” We also give an eschatological and apocalyptical cause to this end, of “times” or “ages” rather than those of philosophical practice. Last but not least, it is the Future itself in the performativity of its ultimatum that determines this end times, reversing these times from the Identity the Future accorded to it, withdrawing the thought-world from the lie of its death. Why this style of axioms and oracles, these more or less subtle distinctions, old and debased, with an appeal to the ultimata , to end times and last words? We fight to give, parallel to the concept of Hell, its new theoretical position, for its philosophical return and its non-philosophical transformation. No more so than any other word, Hell is not a metaphor here, just the Principle of Sufficient World. Every man, no doubt, has his “hell” readily available, connivance, control, conformism, domestication, schooling, alienation, extermination, exploitation, oppression, anxiety, etc. We have our little list that the Contemporaries established in the previous century in the same way one used to construct lists of virtues and vices or honors and wealth. They invented it for us without knowing it, for us-the-Futures who have as our responsibility to invent its use. In the Christian and Gnostic tradition, the struggle of the End Times takes place “on earth.” The most sophisticated of believers have it taking place in Heaven as well, above all in Heaven. The various kinds of gnosis imagine infinite falls and vertiginous highs, the vertigo of salvation. On Earth as in Heaven, a hell is available. The Marxists have the law of profit and the control of production, the class struggle Capital imposes on man. The Nietzscheans, the dull grumble of the struggle in the foundations of World and History, the domestication of man, the society of control. The phenomenologists, the capture of being, the most superficial amongst them, the age of suspicion. But all of these “hells” are taken from World, History, Society, and Religion. What we call Hell is no longer of the order of these specific and total intra-worldly generalities, it is both more singular and more universal, no longer being at all of the same order, it is the determinant Identity of these small hells strung out through history but unified here in the name of the last Humaneity. It is even found within the French idiom for hell [ enfer ], en-fer literally means “in-irons.” We are as much “in-irons” as we are “alive” [ en-Vie ]. We believe in Hell but as non-philosophers and it is even because we are non-philosophers that we can believe in it outside of any sort of religion. Hell is less mythological than ideological, it combines philosophizability with universal capital. Under what form? A single term could work for them without being a metaphor or something they would participate in by analogy, a more innovative and conjectural term than control, more universal than profit. It would denote the growing and permanent extortion of a surplus-value of communication, of speed and of urgency in change, in productivity and in work, in the pressure of images and slogans. It would be worse than solicitation, more tenacious than capture, more active and persecutory than control, softer and more insidious than a frontal attack, just as perverse as questioning and accusation, less brutal and offensive than extermination, less ritualized than inquisition, it would be soft and dispersed, instantaneous and vicious, it would be a crime without declared violence. Collusion and conformism, it would be afraid to show itself. Related to rumor, from which it borrows its infinite and tortuous ways. It is harassment. As a modernized form of Hell, perhaps harassment has a long future in front of it, of innocent torture, slow assassination, in short the fall, but radical with no way of recovering and which tolerates only salvation. THE PHILOSOPHICAL PAST OF NON-PHILOSOPHY Non-philosophy is thus Man as the utopian identity of the philosophical form of the World, a utopia destined to transform it. We still have to understand these equations, in particular that of the being-uni-versed from Man, and this book adheres to this by re-exposing non-philosophy in a different way via one of its new possibilities. It uses this opportunity to once again take up formulations that lead to objections answering certain external critics, as well as revisiting diverging interpretations specific to non-philosophers. A portion of this book is devoted to going through these theories via a strict or “lengthy” presentation of non-philosophy, and its defense against more expeditious solutions. This work of rectification is the occasion, merely the occasion, for refocusing non-philosophy on Man (the “Man-in-person,” “Humaneity”), and in a more innovative manner, on its utopian vocation established since the book Future Christ . As for this “occasion,” it is quite obvious. A school of posture, not to say a school of thought, supposes a minimum of closure from the most liberating of knowledge, a heritage, its utilization, and its no less certain dispersal. Within its development, a variety of interpretations will no doubt appear, deviations that are as much normalizations, and a struggle against this multiplication of divergent tendencies. These are perhaps not inevitable evils, especially here, merely a normal development according to the twisting paths of history. But the problem is made worse by the fact that this school of non-philosophers is that of utopia. Not the former attempts devoted to commenting on the worst authoritarian and criminal forms of the past and the present, but utopia as the determinant principle for human life, or to put it another way, of the Future as an irreducible presupposition of (for) thinking the World and History. Non-philosophers are engaged in an aleatory navigation between the respect for the most rigorous utopia, whose rules are not that of the reproductive imagination but those from the Future determining imagination itself, as well as the temptations, diversions, and remorse of history. Little by little, we will begin to understand that the Future as we understand it no longer has any temporal consistency or positive content, without being an empty form or a nothingness, but that it is foreclosed to past and present History, just as it is foreclosed to the place of places, the World, and that it is the only method for establishing the practice of thinking in a non-imaginary instance. Because it is the World and History that are imaginary and have a terrible materiality, it is not necessarily utopia. We will overlap two objectives here: the defense of non-philosophy against the (non-) philosophers that we are, only occasionally, and the introduction of philosophy to a rigorous future. Together they set out to definitively render, without any possible return to philosophical conformism or towards the facilities of the past and present, the non-philosophical enterprise understood as utopia or uchronia. Imagination and speculation, left to themselves and thus undistinguished, are quite good for participating in the grand game of History but have little value or worse for the Future which is unimaginable and unintelligible and must be maintained as such. MAN-IN-PERSON AS SUSPENSION OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL CHORA The point where philosophical resistance is concentrated is without a doubt the invention of the Name-of-Man, first name, oracular as much as axiomatic, of the determining cause for the non-philosophical posture. And that which concentrates the differends is the style of non-philosophy as identity that possesses the dual aspect, of discipline and of the oeuvre, of the theorem and of the oracle. But the real difficulty in understanding the simplicity of non-philosophy is profoundly hidden in the depths of philosophy itself. Because philosophy, from Parmenides to Derrida, even Levinas, continues to be a divided gesture, without a veritable immanence, transforming its thematic contents of transcendence in also forgetting to transform the operative transcendence in the element from which the ontology of surface is established which we will call, in memory of Plato, the chorismos. The general effect of the chora literally gives place to philosophy, demanding binding and sutures to which we will once and for all “oppose” the Man-in-person, his power of cloning, and his future being. All philosophy contains a hinter-philosophy in which it deploys its operations and weaves its tradition like an understudy of a topographical nature and in the best of cases being itself topological. Philosophy as well consists of two levels, its pre-ontological operative conditions on the one hand, and its superficial theme on the other, it too has its presupposed, but is not aware of it or erases it within the unity of appearance named Logos. Rightly, the Logos, and its flash or lightning nature, possesses a “dark precursor,” the chora, which is as much a virtual image, and philosophy, dazzled by its own lightning flash, seems to completely forget about it at the same time it sets itself up within it. Non-philosophy risks taking this same path, of confusing what it believes to be the real with its phantom double, contenting itself to working on the thematic level of philosophy, not its surface objects and its idle chatter (we stopped talking about this a long time ago and in any case they are merely simple materials for inducing a work of transformation), but the transcendence-form of its objects. In the end it risks, through precipitation, taking back up the heritage of philosophy, a heritage of a misunderstood presupposed, even more profound than the play of transcendences. This is what the imperative of the radicality of immanence meant, to treat immanence in an immanent manner, not to make a new object out of it. And from here we get non- (philosophy) and its refusal of the Platonic chorismos , symbol of all abstraction, and thus all transcendental appearance. There are no illusions. The message will leave a heritage in tattered pieces and interpretations. But it was difficult not to dispute the differend to its core. There will be complete confusion of the multiple, possible, and necessary effectuations of non-philosophy with its interpretations. The non-philosophical or human freedom of philosophical effectuation and the philosophical freedom of interpretation. Effectuations demand non-philosophy to return to zero from the point of view of its philosophical material and thus also but within these limits the formulation of its axioms , but in no way providing from the outset divergent interpretations of the aforementioned axioms. They are divergent because they do not take into account the material from which these axioms are derived within non-philosophy, and because they do not see themselves as symptoms of another vision of the World. The utterances of non-philosophy are not mathematical theorems and pure axioms, they merely have a mathematical aspect . They are, by their extraction or origin, mathematical and transcendental. And by their determined function in-Real, within non-philosophy, they are identically in-the-last-Humaneity entities which have an aspect of an axiom and an aspect of interpretation (or an oracular aspect as we say) that attempts (sometimes it is ourselves who provide the occasion) to isolate and transform, in complete freedom of interpretation. There will be an opportunity to complain about the complex character of the language of non-philosophy, an idiom saturated with classical references, sophisticated in a contemporary way. Its freedom of decision up against the whole of philosophy demands these effects of “complication” and “privatization,” as the saying goes. But it also demands fighting against the drift [ dérive ] of the pedagogical-all and the mediatic-all that leads philosophy into the shallow depths of opinion, which is the site of its impossible death. The noble idealism of “pop-philosophy” has been consumed into a “philo-reality;” against this we propose philo-fiction. Parricide, which is at the bottom of these interpretations and which we can judge as being quite fertile, although it has informed tradition, only takes place once or within one lone meaning. In regards to Parmenides, it was possible; Plato introduced the Other as non-being and language, bringing into existence the philosophical system of the World, but is it possible to repeat it again with the same fecundity in regards to non-philosophy, this time in introducing (non) religion or (non) art, still mixing them without taking into account this mixture, alternatively as a philosophical or religious resentment? If philosophy begins via a crime, it is no doubt obliged to continue down similar pathways, to the effect that the crimes of philosophy, once the founding crime has been committed, are a reaction of self-defense. It is undoubtedly from this that we get Marx’s declaration that history begins by tragedy and repeats itself or ends in farce. The preservation of rigor and fecundity is, in every respect, a psychologically difficult task within a theory such as non-philosophy. Having posited an essential objective of liberation in regards to philosophy and its services, one has often understood this objective as an authorization of providing particular interpretations of its axioms and ends up obliterating their scope. This ends up confusing, on one hand, two kinds of freedoms in regards to non-philosophy, the freedom of its interpretations and the freedom of its effectuations. On the other hand, any defense of “principles” against precipitated interpretations is immediately taxed with a will to orthodoxy, a prohibitive objection when we are dealing with, as is the case here, a heretical theory of thought. Nevertheless, it is time to stop confusing heresy as the cause of thought with an ideology of heresies, which is certainly not at all our object, but rather a form of normalization. As for the “disciplinary” aspect, which is not the only aspect, it demands something other than philosophical “answers to objections,” a precision in the definition and use of its procedures in the formation of utterances, since non-philosophy is neither a supplementary doctrine interior to philosophy nor a vision of the world but one whose priority is a “vision of Man,” or rather Man as “vision” that implies a theory and a practice of philosophy. In the end, struggle is only one aspect of non-philosophy, not its whole or telos, struggle coming only from its materiality. In particular, if the discipline of non-philosophy is inseparable from struggle, it is not a question of reducing the monomaniacal obsession of its “marching orders.” This would reduce its complexity and kill its indivisibility, deploying it in a “long march” and a form of Maoization whose philosophical presuppositions no longer have any pertinence here, a case of the One and the Two, which are now cloned and no longer tied together. More generally, non-philosophy is a complex thought composed of a multitude of aspects, which is to say, unilateral interpretations, of a philosophical origin but reduced by their determination in-the-last-instance . The “liberalism” of non-philosophy is merely one of the aspects of which it is capable, not an essence. Similarly, it is only capable of having a “Maoist” aspect. Let us generalize. The weakness of non-philosophy is due to a specific cause, the determination-in-the-last-Humaneity of a subject for the World. Everything that has a right to the philosophical city can be said about it in turn and in a retaliatory mode since Man contributes nothing of himself that Man takes from the World. We can consider non-philosophy as being pretentious, absurd, idealistic, empty, materialistic, formalistic, contradictory, modern, post-modern, Zen, Buddhist, Marxist; it endures or tolerates, perhaps “appeals” to, or at least renders possible, sarcasms, ironies, and insults without even talking about the misunderstandings, partly for the same reason as psychoanalysis. All of this goes beyond simple “deviations.” They are its aspects, which is to say, its “unilateral” philosophical interpretations in both senses of the word, being either sufficient coming from the mouth of philosophers, or reduced to their absolute dimension of sufficiency and totality in the mouths of non-philosophers, and both times due to the weakness and strength of Man-in-person as their determination only in-the-last-instance. The non-philosopher is certainly not a Saint Paul fantasizing about a new Church. The non-philosopher is either a (Saint) Sebastian whose flesh is pierced with as many arrows as there are Churches, or a Christ persecuted by a Saint Paul. What is engaged in here is the practice of retaliation. A negative rule of the non-philosophical ethics of outlawed discussion by way of argumentation (the sufficient is you, the orthodox one is always you, you are the fashionable one, and when a master you are someone else) that is founded on the confusion of effectuations of non-philosophy and of its overall interpretations. Retaliation is the law but as with any too-human law, it must acquire a dimension that displaces it, or rather emplaces it and takes away its authority but not all of its effectiveness. If the non-philosopher is only authorized by himself, which is to say by philosophy but limited by the Real-of-the-last-instance, its critique of other non-philosophers can merely be retaliatory under the same conditions, only by the Real limited in-the last-instance. THE TREE OF PHILOSOPHICAL SAINTLINESS The thematic horizon or material of these debates is in the relationships between philosophy, religion as gnosis, and non-philosophy. It is inevitable, regarding non-philosophers in general (whether they are non-philosophers by name or simply its neighbors) that we often end up evoking Marx’s Holy Family and imagining, arranged on the neighboring branches of the tree of philosophy and annexed, sometimes abusively, to non-philosophy, authors who would quite evidently and quite rightly refuse this label. So it is that we find, for example, a Saint Michel, a Saint Alain, a Saint Gilles 1 without even mentioning the youngest who aspire as well to the freedom of “saintliness” and who make their muted voices heard here. If there is a Holy Family of non-philosophers, it extends completely beyond these three, provided that the sectarian spirit can save us. This book is organized in the following manner: To begin, in order to recall the essential part of the problematic, we have organized a Summary of Non-Philosophy , a vade-mecum of notions and basic problems, in a classical style. Secondly, there is Clarifications On the Three Axioms of Non-Philosophy , designed to posit their proper use as much as to elucidate their meaning. Thirdly, an analysis of Philosophizability and Practicity , both being extreme constituents of philosophical material or the contents of the third axiom. Fourthly, the heart of this work: Let us Make a Tabula Rasa of the Future or of Utopia as Method . Fifthly, we have a theoretical outline of a non-institutional utopia, The International Organization of Non-Philosophy, L’Organisation Non-Philosophique Internationale, (ONPHI) already created in practice but under the conditions of possibility and functioning from which here we put into question “de jure,” thus not without a perplexity concerning “facts,” in any case, without the capability of “getting to the bottom of things.” Sixthly, an essay characterizing The Right and the Left of Non-Philosophy , a brief topology of several philosophizing and normalizing positions of proponents or tenants of this problematic. Seventhly, Rebel in the Soul: A Theory of Future Struggle , a systematic discussion starting from a confrontation of non-philosophical gnosis and non-religious gnosis to the extent that they pose, posed or perhaps still will pose themselves as rivals to non-philosophy in a mixture of fidelity and infidelity. Despite the fact that it can also be read as putting non-philosophy into perspective: it pits against a standard Platonism two contemporary appropriations of Gnosticism. On the basis of the paradigm of Man who never ceases to come as the Future-in-person, each one of these moments strives to reestablish not the “true” non-philosophy and its orthodoxy, but the minimal conditions to respect in order to allow for its maximum fecundity. And in order to bring about one of the last possibilities of its development, making explicit Humaneity as a utopia-for-the-World. In introducing these considerations in the form of a “testament” and “ultimatum,” we want to indicate two things: First, that this is the last time we will intervene in order to caution non-philosophers against the temptation of returning and looking backwards towards philosophy. Only a disillusioned nostalgia for the former World and its traditions barely remain permissible to us.… Secondly, that non-philosophy is also a sort of ultimatum for considering one’s life and transforming one’s thought from the perspective of a uni-version rather than a conversion. Man as future is this ultimatum in action, not an impatient self-proclaimed genius, and philosophy is his testament. It is obviously the ultimatum that determines this testament as “old” with a view towards a life that is, itself, non-testamentary. In and of itself, the “old” can never bear a veritable eschaton. Thus, this book intersects according to the logic of this paradigm, under the sign of the ultimate or “last” as future, philosophy as testament and cautionary note for maintaining the non-philosophical oeuvre as “future” or “utopian.” We will see that between these two dimensions it cradles a theory of struggle. In the end, this book envisions non-philosophers in multiple ways. It inevitably sees them as subjects of knowledge, most often academics insofar as life in the world demands, but above all as close relatives of three great human types. The analyst and political militant are quite obvious, for non-philosophy is close to psychoanalysis and Marxism insofar as it transforms the subject in transforming philosophy. Here again, one must have a sense not of certain nuances but of aspects (of the interpretations, albeit unilateralized) and not in order to construct a simple proletarization or militarization of thought as theory. To be rigorous, rather than authoritarian or spiteful, is its task. And lastly, non-philosophy is a close relative of the spiritual but definitely not the spiritualist. Those who are spiritual are not at all spiritualists, for the spiritual oscillate between fury and tranquil rage, they are great destroyers of the forces of Philosophy and the State, which are united under the name of Conformism. They haunt the margins of philosophy, gnosis, mysticism, science fiction and even religions. Spiritual types are not only abstract mystics and quietists; they are heretics for the World. The task is to bring their heresy to the capacity of utopia, and their utopia to the capacity of the paradigm. NOTES We will recognize allusions, and sometimes references, to closely related or distant themes, but which are related, in the work of Michel Henry, Alain Badiou and via the representative of “non-religious” gnosis of a Platonic origin, in Gilles Grelet. It goes without saying that these discussions are current and local, neither concerning the ensemble of doctrines nor prejudging the eventual evolution of certain amongst them. This concerns defining certain proximities with non-philosophy (rather than adversaries which in some sense they are) and typological and emblematic differends (rather than conflicts with a certain author). (shrink)

This article discusses the ascetic–eschatological dimension of consecrated life through the lens of death. Death is not understood as an impenetrable border which separates the two worlds but as a fluid cell membrane which binds time and eternity. The phenomenon of death in consecrated life is perceived in three ritual events: baptism, religious consecration and physical death. These three moments make the so–called 3D transformation which is not only in these three events but through asceticism it is extended to the (...) whole existence of the consecrated person. Ascetic way of living is the membrane where eschaton transcends its own borders. The effort of asceticism and joy of eschaton in consecrated life are two sides of the same reality. Considering the relation between asceticism and eschaton, a convent could be named a heavenly embassy and consecrated people heavenly ambassadors. (shrink)

The God of Israel in the theology of Robert Jenson -- Jenson's hermeneutics -- Godd in Israel's life -- The God of Israel and Jesus -- The God of Israel and the Trinity -- The God of Israel, the People of God, and the Eschaton -- The identity of the one and triune God of Israel -- Jenson, the God of Israel, and non-supersessionist theology.

Durante mucho tiempo el cosmos se entendió como algo eterno. Las tradiciones Abrahamicas trajeron al debate no solo la idea de creación sino también la idea de fin del mundo, eschaton, sin embargo, nadie sabía el día ni la hora. Durante el proceso de secularización, esta promesa que encontramos en el Apocalipsis tiene impacto en el discurso político fomentando una perspectiva optimista sobre el futuro. Sin embargo, durante el siglo XX la física y la astronomía descubren que el cosmos (...) no podrá seguir alojando más vida en le futuro, y esto fue visto por varios autores como una confirmación de que la vida no tiene sentido. Sin embargo, prestando mayora atención a la relación entre la idea de eschaton y telos podemos comprender que existe una diferencia entre ambas nociones. A pesar de que la Astronomía afirme que en un futuro lejano habrá un fin, ¿es esta la última respuesta a la pregunta por el sentido de la vida? Este artículo es una aproximación a la distinción entre sentido de la idea de fin dado por la cosmología y el sentido de fin que encontramos en la filosofía. (shrink)

Apocalyptic thinking has a long religious and political tradition, but what place does it occupy within the temporal universe of contemporary capitalism? In this essay, we use the figure of the eschaton to draw out the loaded and ambiguous character of the future as it emerges through the condition of indebtedness. This entails a departure from political economy accounts of capitalist futurity, which stress the structural logic of financial speculation, in favour of an existential account that begins instead with (...) the cosmology of money and debt. We argue that finance capital’s fixation on the future has produced a very specific form of apocalyptic imagination, characteristic of financial society and built on a libidinal economy of leverage. Rather than offering an ecstatic end to the global process of financialization, financial eschatologies bind the contemporary subject to debt and indebtedness to the very end: an endless apocalypse, premised on the ends of finance itself. (shrink)

Evolution: a closer look -- Forgotten truths -- Complexity-consciousness: law or myth? -- In search of creative union -- Omega hypothesis -- God of evolution -- Biblical fall and evolutionist ascent -- New Eschaton in historical perspective -- Socialization and super-organism -- New religion -- Teilhard de Chardin: biographical facts -- Riddle of Genesis 2.4-5.

In seinem Werk „Totalität und Unendlichkeit” ist Levinas darauf bedacht, eine radikale Philosophie der Transzendenz zu konzipieren. Seine Kritik der abendländischen philosophischen Tradition gipfelt in dem Vorwurf, dasz sie die Momente der Reflexion, der Immanenz und der Totalität übermäszig betont hat, und zwar auf Kosten der echten Transzendenz. Sie opfert die Andersheit des Anderen auf, um ihn systematisch auf Denselben zurückzuführen. Das wirklich Transzendente kann wesensmäszig nicht innerhalb des Horizontes einer Vorvertrautheit erscheinen, da es „totaliter aliter” und das von mir (...) vollkommen Getrennte ist. Es tritt mir im Antlitz des Anderen entgegen. Das Antlitz empfängt seinen Sinn nicht von etwas anderem, es ist selbst sinnverleihend. Infolge des Antlitzes existiere ich für den Anderen, habe ich die Möglichkeit, mich ihm gegenüber sittlich zu verhalten. Transzendenz wird daher ursprünglich im sittlichen Bewusztsein erfahren. Sittlichkeit offenbart sich als Widerstand gegen die immer anwesende Versuchung, den Anderen zu negieren. Das Gebot „Du sollst nicht töten !” ist die erste, nicht die letzte Sinngebung. Dadurch - und nicht durch blosze Erkenntnis — wird das Seiende als Seiendes bestätigt. Das Tötungsverbot ist jedoch der Kristallisationspunkt für alle anderen ethischen Normen. Die Person, die ich nicht beseitigen darf, musz ich auch achten, ihrer Schamhaftigkeit darf ich keine Gewalt antun, für sie bin ich verantwortlich. Auf der sittlichen Anerkennung des Anderen beruht die intersubjektive Verständigung, die Sprache, der vernünftige Umgang und dessen Institutionalisierung. Daher das Primat der praktischen Vernunft, das Levinas auf eine neue Weise zu begründen sucht. Die soeben skizzierte „Philosophie des Antlitzes” bildet den Inhalt der drei ersten Kapitel des Werkes „Totalität und Unendlichkeit”. Das vierte und letzte Kapitel trägt jedoch den bezeichnenden Titel „Jenseits des Antlitzes”. Hierin entwirft Levinas auf überraschende Weise eine Philosophie der Erotik und der Fruchtbarkeit. Was motiviert ihn zu dieser Wendung ? Ausgangspunkt der gesamten Problematik ist zweifellos die Frage nach dem Urteil Gottes, durch das meine Existenz gerechtfertigt oder verworfen wird. Ohne solch ein Urteil wäre Sittlichkeit lediglich subjektive Illusion oder Wahnsinn. Wie kann es aber gefällt werden ? Levinas weist alle theologischen und philosophischen Lösungsversuche ab. Das Urteil Gottes ist kein übernatürlicher Eingriff in das mundane Geschehen ; es tritt nicht, wie Hegel geglaubt hat, im Laufe der Weltgeschichte zutage ; es offenbart sich nicht in der Innerlichkeit einer der Mystik beflissenen Seele. Levinas zufolge bedarf das göttliche Urteil, um als Wahrheit hervortreten zu können, einer unendlichen Zeit. Diese ist ihrerseits nur denkbar infolge der menschlichen Generativität. Warum vertieft sich Levinas jedoch in eine Phänomenologie der Erotik ? Die Erotik ist das Gebiet des Zweideutigen. In ihr verschmelzen Immanenz und Transzendenz, sinnliches Bedürfnis und metaphysisches Verlangen. Das Weibliche erscheint einerseits als das Verletzliche, andererseits als das schamlos Herausfordernde. Die erotische Liebkosung möchte etwas ausdrücken, es gelingt ihr aber nicht, es zur Sprache zu bringen. Während die Philosophie des Antlitzes die Tagesansicht der menschlichen Existenz zeigt — Sittlichkeit, Verantwortung, Sprache, Vernunft — offenbart die Phänomenologie der Erotik deren Nachtseite. Levinas weist alle Versuche vorschneller Rationalisierung des erotischen Geschehens — die psychoanalytische, die Sartre'sche, die sozialpsychologische — zurück. Die sinnliche Liebe ist und bleibt, anthropologisch betrachtet, zweideutig. Ihre Ambiguität wird ausschlieszlich durch die Fruchtbarkeit überstiegen. Das Kind ist der geheime Sinn der Erotik, ohne dasz die Liebenden dies ahnen. — Levinas distanziert sich hier bewuszt von den „existenziellen” Phänomenologen, von Sartre und Merleau-Ponty. Ihnen zufolge ist der Mensch das „lumen naturale” ; d.h. dasz das Sinnvolle ausschlieszlich auf Grund von menschlicher Intentionalität geschieht. Levinas dagegen beweist, dasz das eminent Sinnvolle sich hinter dem Rücken des ego abspielt, dasz es durch kein cogito erkannt, erstrebt, entworfen wird. — Ueberdies wird durch die Einführung des Begriffes „Fruchtbarkeit” der Zauberkreis der phänomenologischen Immanenz gesprengt. Das erotische Abenteuer hat zwar seinen Ursprung in Mir, sein Endpunkt befindet sich jedoch auszer Mir. Die Subjektivität ist zwar unendliche Intersubjektivität, wie Husserl bereits erkannt hat, sie ist es aber lediglich infolge ihrer Generati vi tat. Sie ist m.a.W. dadurch unendlich, dasz sie sich immer aufs neue verjüngt. Die alte Generation stirbt ab und macht einer Jugend Platz, die radikal von neuem zu beginnen imstande ist. Levinas konzipiert nicht nur eine Philosophie der Jugend, er meditiert auch über das Wesen der Vaterschaft. Die Vaterschaft befreit das Ich von der Bürde seiner Selbstheit, denn das Ich ist der Sohn. Der Sohn bedeutet in Bezug auf den Vater einerseits einen „ Bruch" — und somit Diskontinuität — andererseits „Hilfsbedürftigkeit” — und daher Kontinuität. Die Intersubjektivität erhält sich somit als eine Kontinuität, die immer wieder unterbrochen wird. — Ein anderes wichtiges ethischreligiöses Denkmotiv ist das folgende : Jeder Sohn ist einziger Sohn. Er verdankt seine Unizität jedoch nicht irgendwelchen leiblich-seelischen Eigenschaften. Er ist einzig, weil der Vater ihn auf einzigartige Weise liebt. Infolgedessen ist jeder Sohn auch auserwählter Sohn. Er ist aber dazu bestimmt, zusammen mit anderen Auserwählten zu existieren. Hieraus entspringt die Idee der menschlichen Bruderschaft und der menschlichen Solidarität. Sie bilden die Grundlage jeglicher Gemeinschaftsbildung und jedweder sozialen Normierung. Die menschliche Sozialität ist, Levinas betont dies, kein tête-à-tête eines Ich mit einem Du ; sie schlieszt notwendigerweise die Möglichkeit eines Dritten in sich. Die menschlichen Gruppen und Gemeinschaften — auch die der Familie — sind von hier aus aufs neue philosophisch zu deuten. Ein Schlüssel zum Verständniss der Levinas'schen Metaphysik ist sein Begriff der „Infinitisierung” („infinition”), dessen Inhalt vielleicht mit der Wendung „dem Unendlichen entgegen wachsen” angedeutet werden kann. Mit welchem Recht spricht jedoch unser Philosoph von solch einem Wachsen, da er doch überzeugt ist, dasz der Mensch gänzlich — nach Leib und Seele — sterblich ist ? Im Geiste Levinas' musz man jedoch sagen, dasz gerade jene Sterblichkeit die „Infinitisierung” ermöglicht. Der Vater musz vollständig sterben, damit das Intervall zwischen den Generationen entsteht, das für die Erneuerung und Verjüngung der Intersubjektivität erforderlich ist. Auf diese Weise kann eine gänzlich neue Zeit anbrechen : die Zeit des Sohnes. Levinas' höchst originelle Philosophie der Zeitlichkeit kann am besten im Ausgang von Martin Heidegger — der hier ausschlieszlich als der Verfasser von „Sein und Zeit” zur Sprache kommt — belichtet werden. Beiden Denkern ist die Ueberzeugung eigen, dasz Temporalität unlöslich verbunden ist mit der — wie immer aufgefaszten — menschlichen Subjektivität. Levinas lehnt jedoch die Lehre von den temporalen Ekstasen, der endlichen Zukunft und dem Sein zum Tode leidenschaftlich ab. Das jemeinige Dasein stirbt zwar notwendigerweise und vollständig. Der Begriff der Subjektivität deckt sich jedoch nicht mit dem des individuellen Daseins. Subjektivität ist vielmehr generative Intersubjektivität. Als solche hat sie eine unendliche Zukunft vor sich. Der Gegensatz Heidegger-Levinas geht letztlich auf eine Verschiedenheit der ethischen Sicht zurück. (Levinas glaubt die Philosophie von „Sein und Zeit” als Ausdruck eines bestimmten Ethos verstehen zu müssen.) Heidegger zufolge ist das Dasein je seine Möglichkeit. Existierend kann es die Möglichkeit, die es ist, verwirklichen oder auch verfehlen : beides ist definitiv. Die Geschichte des individuellen Daseins nimmt auf diese Weise den Charakter eines unwiderruflichen Schicksals an. Dies gibt Levinas Anlasz zu grundsätzlichen Bedenken. Die Transzendenz, die Heidegger dem Dasein zuschreibt, ist keine echte Transzendenz, da sie auf die Gewinnung der je eigenen Möglichkeit gerichtet ist. Dies führt zu einer egozentrischen Selbstvergötterung und Vereinsamung. Das Ethos, das jene Philosophie des Daseins beseelt, ist das eines tragischen Heldentums. Dem stellt Levinas sein eigenes Ideal der spontanen Verantwortlichkeit, Dienstbarkeit und Geduld gegenüber. — Aber auch die Vorstellung einer endlichen Existenz, deren Verfehlungen und Versäumnisse schicksalhafte Endgültigkeit besitzen, ist unvereinbar mit der religiösen Sicht unseres Philosophen. Seiner Ansicht nach enthält der Begriff des endlichen Daseins einen impliziten Hinweis, dem nachzugehen ist. Levinas tut dies mit Hilfe der Begriffe „Jugend”, „radikale Erneuerung” und „Diskontinuität der Zeit”. Es ist völlig wahr, was Heidegger behauptet : Sein erscheint als Zeit, aber wohlgemerkt, als unendliche Zeit. Sie erstreckt sich durch die verschiedenen Zeiten und durch die Intervalle, die die Zeit des Vaters von der des Sohnes scheiden. Darum ist es undenkbar, dasz der eine Augenblick bruchlos aus der Ekstase des anderen hervorgeht. „Der Augenblick findet, während er fortdauert, den Tod und ersteht wieder. Tod und Auferstehung konstituieren die Zeit. Aber eine derartige formale Struktur setzt die Beziehung von Mir zum Anderen voraus und als deren Boden die Fruchtbarkeit.” Levinas' Philosophie ist nicht „optimistisch”. Von Anfang an betont er, dasz der Realist eigentlich anerkennen müszte, dasz das Wesen der Wirklichkeit der Krieg ist. Vom Frieden könne nur in der Sprache einer Eschatologie geredet werden. — Die Frage drängt sich nun auf, ob jenes Eschaton im Geiste von Levinas im Zusammenhang mit dem „Urteil Gottes” steht. Sie kann unter dem Vorbehalt bejaht werden, dasz dabei alle Vorstellungen, die dem Glauben — auch dem jüdischen Glauben — entstammen, ausgeklammert werden. Es handelt sich bei Levinas um eine Religiosität „innerhalb der Grenzen der reinen Vernunft.” Das Eschaton ist unserem Philosophen zufolge nicht ein welterschütterndes Ereignis ; es unterbricht nicht den Verlauf der kosmischen und sozialen Prozesse ; es ist auch nicht „das Ende der Zeiten”. Das Eschaton ist nichts anderes als das Offenbar-werden des göttlichen Urteils oder, was dasselbe besagt ein Sprechen, durch das die Wahrheit und die Güte in Erscheinung tritt. Voraussetzung dafür ist eine „Konvergenz der Moralität und der Realität” ; d.h. dasz im Laufe einer unendlichen Zukunft das innerliche Leben der Menschheit vertieft, ihr Gewissen empfindlicher und ihre Geduld gröszer geworden sein wird. Denn jenes Sprechen erfolgt nicht mit Posaunenschall am „Jüngsten Tag”, es ereignet sich vielmehr alle Tage in den Beziehungen von Person zu Person. M.a.W. das Urteil Gottes wird immerwährend gefällt, wenn auch hinter den Kulissen der offiziellen Geschichte. Es wird gefällt, wenn der Erniedrigte und Beleidigte mich beschuldigt — beschuldigt einfach dadurch, dasz er mir in die Augen schaut. Das Antlitz des Anderen lädt mich vor Gericht, vor Ihm musz ich mich verantworten, Ich, in meiner persönlichen Einzigkeit und Unersetzlichkeit. Meinerseits unterwerfe Ich mich dem Gerichte Gottes in dem Masze, als Ich bereit bin, jene Anklage gegen mich zu vernehmen und mich zu verantworten. Wohlgemerkt : Levinas hält daran fest, dasz das eschatologische Urteil das Werk Gottes ist ; es wird jedoch ausschlieszlich in Menschen und durch Menschen zu einer Erfahrung. Levinas’ Ueberzeugung hinsichtlich der zunehmenden Empfindlichkeit des menschheitlichen Gewissens beruht nicht auf einem oberflächlichen Fortschrittsglauben. Ihr liegt vielmehr eine metaphysische Sicht zugrunde. Den Schlüssel zu ihrem Verständnis bietet wiederum der Begriff der „Infinitisierung”. Sie macht sich in analoger Weise auf drei verschiedenen Ebenen geltend. -Die erste ist die der Fruchtbarkeit. Rein empirisch kann man feststellen, dasz das fruchtbare Wesen andere Wesen hervorbringt, die ihrerseits fruchtbar sind, und dasz auf diese Weise die Fruchtbarkeit in der Natur zunimmt. Hinter dieser empirischen Aussage verbirgt sich jedoch eine ethisch-metaphysische Wahrheit. Im Geiste Levinas' müszte man sagen : Kreative Güte bringt nicht nur Güte hervor, sondern überdies noch mehr Güte. Hier liegt eine Analogie mit dem vor, was soeben als das göttliche Urteil bezeichnet wurde. Durch das Urteil, das der Verfolgte und Unterdrückte über mich fällt, wird mein schlummerndes Gewissen geweckt. Diese Weckung wird ihrerseits eine bleibende gewissensvollere Haltung zur Folge haben. Ich werde jetzt andere Anklagen eher vernehmen und mich ihnen bereitwilliger stellen. Es ist hier wieder die Rede von einer „Infinitisierung”, d.h. von einem unendlichen Wachstum in der Richtung auf das Gute zu. Das dritte und höchste Niveau ist das des metaphysischer Verlangens („ Désir"). Dieses unterscheidet sich wesentlich von dem egozentrischen Bedürfnis („ besoin"). Was letzteres betrifft, gilt das Folgende : Hat sich das Ich seines Objektes bemächtigt — hat es dieses theoretisch erkannt oder praktisch in Besitz genommen —, dann ist das Bedürfnis gestillt. Es ist erloschen, wenn das Andere, das Objekt, Mir, Demselben, einverleibt wurde. Daraus wird die grundsätzliche Endlichkeit jenes egozentrischen Lebens ersichtlich. Das metaphysische Verlangen dagegen ist unersättlich, „nicht, weil es einem unendlichen Hunger entspricht, sondern weil es keine Speise begehrt”. Es ist ja auf kein Objekt gerichtet. Dem Unendlichen gegenüber ist kein intentionales Verhalten möglich. Wohl aber ist es denkbar, dasz das endliche Wesen von dem überwältigenden Charakter des Unendlichen getroffen wird. Je mehr mein Verständnis für jenes alles Uebertreffende zunimmt, desto gröszer wird auch mein metaphysisches Verlangen. Es liegt also wieder eine „Infinitisierung” vor. Das Eschaton ereignet sich demnach jetzt und hier, wenn auch die offizielle Geschichte von ihm nichts weisz. Es besteht in einem unmerklichen Reifen der Menschheit, die sich in einer unendlichen Zukunft einem gänzlich neuen ethischsozialen Zustand nähert. Der eschatalogische Endzustand kann vielleicht als die vollkommene Harmonie zwischen Sozialität und Personalität charakterisiert werden. (shrink)

'Sense perception in current process thought' was the topic of a workshop organized by the 'Whitehead Psychology Nexus' (for more information see below) at Fontareches in spring 2003. This and earlier Fontareches meetings can be characterized by just a few elements: non-dogmatism, interdisciplinarity and overlapping approaches. Although the convergence point is Whitehead's philosophy, this is intended in the sense of an 'eschaton' rather than a 'telos'. The vivid discussions, occurring in a very thoughtful, yet relaxed, atmosphere in the small (...) village of Fontareches in Southern France, have amply testified for the promising paths and synergies that can emerge in such an environment. This year, the core intention was to examine relations between Whitehead's theory of perception and contemporary psychology. The individual contributions can be sorted into the three areas of philosophy, cognitive science, and mental health/psychoanalysis. Unsurprisingly, the question of temporality was addressed -- explicitly or implicitly -- in most of the papers. (shrink)

In recent years, a new type of Neo-Augustinian theology has received extensive attention: Radical Orthodoxy. Leading figures behind Radical Orthodoxy such as John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock, and Graham Ward assert that they reclaim Augustine's theology over and against almost every major types of modern theology. Their leading claim is that an Augustinian participationist theological ontology overcomes Enlightment sourced secularism. In this essay, the Augustinian character of Radical Orthodox theology is put to the test in terms of a comparison and confrontation (...) between Radical Orthodoxy and Augustine's Christology. It is shown that Radical Orthodoxy's sole concern with regard to Christology is in the manifestation or expression of the ontological relationship or unity of God and the world. Thus, Radical Orthodoxy has its roots in a post-Hegelian rethinking of unity in difference rather than being a rediscovery of Augustine's theology. Subsequently, it is shown that Radical Orthodoy's reading of Augustine denies his understanding of the manifestation of the being of God in Christ; furthermore, it does not account for Augustine's doctrine of atonement: where we recover our original justice and happiness through the substituting life and death of Christ, an atonement which prepares us for the vision of God in the Eschaton. (shrink)

Cette édition numérique a été réalisée à partir d'un support physique, parfois ancien, conservé au sein du dépôt légal de la Bibliothèque nationale de France, conformément à la loi n° 2012-287 du 1er mars 2012 relative à l'exploitation des Livres indisponibles du XXe siècle. Pages de début Liminaire I - L'homme et son lieu Topologie et liturgie Lieu et non-lieu Non-expérience et non-événement L'avenir absolu : anticipation et conversion L'existence comme veille II - Expérience fondamentale L'écart par rapport à l'initial (...) comme principe herméneutique Hegel, l'eschaton dans l'en deçà de la mort Le site préeschatologique de la question de l'hommeJalons pour un traitement kénotique de la question de l'homme Pages de fin. (shrink)

The ecological crisis in the world necessitates the reconfiguration of the hegemony of modern science, theology, politics, economics and technology – the root cause of a pending ecological catastrophe. The aim is to redress a growing culture of apathy in the context of devastating weather conditions, social and political discord, and unrelenting violent wars. Public theology serves as a conceptual framework with transversal rationality as an interlocutor between the different theological (systematic, ethics, pastoral care and eco-theology), religious and philosophical perspectives. (...) The theological ontology of care is presented followed by the role of communities of critical prophetic discourse. The notion of earth as a community leads to the prospect of a new eco-theology. Finally, the pending ecological catastrophe is reconceptualised in and through Christian eschatology. This is an inter- and intra-disciplinary discussion on the disastrous consequences of modernity and anthropocentric behaviour in terms of the current environmental crisis. Various scholars offer valuable insights into what the problem is, who responsible is for the environmental crisis, and how Christian communities should forge an accountability of care for the earth and vulnerable human beings. The eschatological reality of God’s preferred future remains a constant of hopeful and sustainable life in the Anthropocene age. It is recommended that we change the way we exist by transforming modernity as developed and sustained through theology, socio-political, economic and technological ‘advances’. Contribution: This article focussed on the ecological crisis because of anthropocentrism and distorted theological, political and socio-economic paradigms to serve human interests despite the consequences for the earth. We need to reconfigure interdisciplinary and intradisciplinary scientific approaches to embrace earth as a key scientific interlocutor. The ecological crisis should be conceptualised within the reality of Christian eschatology – Jesus Christ is ultimately, the eschaton. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Human Perfection in Byzantine Theology: Attaining the Fullness of Christ by Alexis TorranceJoshua H. LimHuman Perfection in Byzantine Theology: Attaining the Fullness of Christ by Alexis Torrance, Changing Paradigms in Historical and Systematic Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), ix + 239 pp.As a part of the series Changing Paradigms in Historical and Systematic Theology, Alexis Torrance's Human Perfection in Byzantine Theology examines the role of Christ's human (...) perfection within key figures in the Byzantine tradition against the backdrop of trends in contemporary Orthodox theology. Torrance seeks to uncover a common "Christocentrism" within the Byzantine tradition that challenges the contemporary tendency among contemporary Orthodox theologians to "unmoor" theological anthropology from the doctrine of the humanity of Christ. Indeed, according to Torrance, some of these approaches go so far as to risk the danger of "theological shipwreck" (1). As general representatives of the tendency Torrance has in mind, we can name such figures as John Zizioulas and Vladimir Lossky, whose personalist anthropologies depart from the tradition by "bypassing or deferring Christology" (10) In the case of Zizioulas, for instance, Torrance sees the disintegration of theological anthropology into "a sentimental application or projection of worldly and hazy concepts of personality and 'community' to both the Godhead and the people of God" (10). If, for Torrance, the above thinkers appear to represent a wayward tendency (even if he takes issue with certain of their "starting points," Torrance nevertheless seems to agree with most of their conclusions), it is Fr. John Behr whose theology Torrance likely has in mind as risking "theological shipwreck."As we shall see, the overall intelligibility of Torrance's work appears only in the final chapter, against the backdrop of Behr's "unmistakably Christocentric" (206) anthropology. While Torrance joins Behr in bemoaning the non-Christocentric character of much of modern theological anthropology, nevertheless, he sees Behr's project as positing a Christocentrism that flies in the face of the Byzantine tradition. In light of Behr's Christocentrism (and in a way that is reminiscent of Gaudium et Spes §22), Torrance wishes to [End Page 373] show that, for any genuinely Byzantine doctrine, Christ, in his particular and enduring humanity, must be the starting point of the human ideal: "Human perfection and human destiny are only revealed, known, and bequeathed in the person of Jesus Christ, the God-man" (11). To this end, Torrance proposes a "fresh Christocentric paradigm" (3).Torrance's study provides insight into important texts which both implicitly and explicitly reflect the priorities of the Fathers. Taking the historical and systematic approach of Georges Florovsky's "neo-patristic synthesis" as his cue, Torrance highlights the centrality of Christ's humanity in four key figures. He examines the immovability of the human will in the eschaton in Maximus the Confessor (ch. 2), the particular ("depictable") and enduring humanity of Christ in Theodore the Studite (ch. 3), the attainability of human perfection in Symeon the New Theologian (ch. 4), and the possibility of deification through uncreated grace in Gregory Palamas (ch. 5). In each of these thinkers Torrance discovers a "thoroughly Christocentric gaze" (37), which begins from the concrete and particular human nature of Christ, and thereby provides a contrast with the abstract tendency of certain contemporary Orthodox thinkers. However, as we shall see, on account of the ambiguity surrounding the term "Christocentric," it is not always clear whether or how Christ's humanity and human perfection figure into the themes discussed. More problematically, it is not always clear whether Christ's perfect humanity provides an insight into human perfection or human nature, as such.For the purposes of this review, we will focus on Torrance's chapter on Theodore the Studite. Torrance's treatment of Theodore is distinct from his treatment of other Byzantine figures inasmuch as Theodore's teaching on Christ's depictability is historically situated in an explicitly Christological debate. While the studies on Maximus, Symeon, and Palamas certainly have themes that, in one way or another, advert to Christ's humanity, nevertheless none of particular issues treated can be said to have Christ's humanity as their essential starting point. This is to say that Christ's human perfection... (shrink)

This article elucidates the significance of eschatology—particularly what may be called negative eschatology—for the task of political life. Through tracing some of the appeals to eschatological notions in recent political thinking and movements, we demonstrate some of the dangers of eschatology as a resource for political theology. The article then engages with the version of negative eschatology rendered by Vincent Lloyd, which holds out the possibility of experiencing a foretaste of the eschaton in moments of struggle against domination. The (...) form of political activity in focus here is a struggle to dismantle that which does not belong to the eschatological order of justice—that is, struggling against what the eschaton is not. We bring this account of the relationship between the eschaton and the political into conversation with Emmanuel Levinas’s conception of infinity, and offer an account of negative eschatology as an invitation into living in relation to a fullness that is ever unfolding. Political activity undertaken in this light is oriented towards opening the conditions of possibility for the contingent transformation of injustice and led by those at the margins. We suggest, therefore, that in the dismantling of what eschatology is not, it is possible to glimpse what the eschaton might be. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Inspiration and Institution in John of Rupescissa's Liber Ostensor XI1Graziana S. CiolaIntroductionThe present study proposes a philosophical analysis of John of Rupescissa's Liber Ostensor [=LO], Treatise XI. John of Rupescissa (OFM, 1310 ca. – 1366)2 is a particularly interesting, eclectic and somewhat extraordinary [End Page 7] author writing around the second third of the 14th century in the wake of the Spiritual Franciscan movement in the South of France.3 (...) In LO XI, Rupescissa theorizes and systematically articulates a complex relationship between inspired knowledge and the normative portrait of what he believes the Franciscan Order should ideally be; he does so against the background of his eschatological concerns. Per Rupescissa's style of exposition and argumentation, these different elements — i.e., inspired epistemology, eschatology, and ecclesiology — are tightly intertwined on a theoretical and foundational level that goes beyond that of mere rhetorics.These themes are both recurrent and pivotal throughout Rupescissa's extremely prolific intellectual output, which counts numerous theological, ecclesiological, eschatological and alchemical treatises.4 LO, composed in [End Page 8] 1356 during Rupescissa's own "Avignon Captivity," is in many ways a sum of Rupescissa's prophetical and eschatological thought within the framing of the author's self-apologetic aims and of his ecclesiological views, in particular concerning the future of the Franciscan Order.5 [End Page 9]Treatise XI is undoubtedly the most theoretical book in LO; with its 489 paragraphs, it is also the longest. While this extremely dense text broaches on a great variety of topics, it is first and foremost about and for Spiritual Franciscans. Overall, LO XI is both a great portrayal of the Franciscan order as it is and as it should be, as well as a handbook addressed to the elect among the Spirituals, in order to help them face the eschaton and the tribulations to come. Per Rupescissa's eschatological views, such trials would affect the Franciscan Order the hardest and for the longest — hence the need for a detailed guide. At its core, then, LO XI is a deeply ecclesiological treatise and as such it is complementary to the larger systematization established in the Sexdequiloquium.6 It is in this framework that LO XI offers a complex theory of prophecy and illuminative knowledge as they should be embodied in the practices of a true Franciscan.7Given its highly abstract nature and cardinal function within one the most complex works of Rupescissa's maturity, LO XI, combining relevant insights on Rupescissa's ecclesiological, epistemological and prophetical positions, constitutes the ideal case study in order to assess Rupescissa's most refined and articulated account on inspired knowledge, particularly insofar as true and actual prophecy is concerned. This inspired knowledge, according to Rupescissa, is an indispensable tool for the elect to be able to victoriously face the imminent end of times. In the account presented in LO XI, such knowledge is possible exclusively through a form of institutional embedding: divine inspiration, culminating in true prophecy, is in service of the Franciscan Order's soteriological role within the Church as a whole, and can only be achieved by those who are faithful to the spirit of Francis's Rule.8 [End Page 10]Here, I analyze Rupescissa's theory of evangelical poverty and its role as a necessary condition for inspired knowledge, following the internal articulation of LO XI.Overall, in Rupescissa's view, Franciscan poverty and inspiration are two inseparable sides of the same coin. On the one hand, inspired knowledge is only achievable through a rigorous practice and thorough understanding of Franciscan poverty. On the other hand, the true institutional role of the Franciscan Order and its soteriological aims can be fulfilled exclusively by the true Spiritual Franciscans, whose moral, spiritual and epistemic perfection is divinely inspired. For Rupescissa, not only is poverty the source of all virtues both for the Franciscan Order and for the rest of the Church, but it also constitutes the ideal moral and social model, tout court. But most importantly, evangelical poverty has a genuinely epistemic role; this role is essential for Rupescissa's illuminative epistemology and for his account of prophetical exegesis — or exegetical prophecy. In turn, the... (shrink)

The environmental economic response to mainstream neo-classical economics’ disconnect from the natural world was to value external environmental costs and include those into decisions about human welfare. The ecological economic response, heavily influenced by systems ecology, brought the concept of ecological scale or carrying capacity, as a limit to human choice. The divisions between these two theories are not merely cosmetic as illustrated by the highpolitical stakes in recent economic and environmental debates. This article concerns itself specifically with the question (...) how Christian economists position themselves towards the unfolding ecological and economic crises. It is shown that the main positions taken in the policy debates on economy and ecology are closely mirrored in the broader Christian economic community, raising the question whether the Christian economic tradition does have anything particular to offer in response to the ecological and economic crises. We approach this question from two angles, first, reviewing the literature on an earlier debate by the Association of Christian Economists on what Christian economists should be doing and, second, reviewing the literature on the relationships between Christianity and environmental beliefs and behaviour. With reference to eco-theological literature on the varying theological views on the relationship between humanity and the rest of creation, and on different expectations of the eschaton, it is shown why such diverging positions are taken among Christian economists. Nevertheless, the objective reality of Jesus Christ demands a particular Christian ethics and behaviour, which in turn, kindles fertile questions for Christian economists in their practical engagement withthe economic and ecological sciences and with broader culture. (shrink)

El artículo expone diversos paradigmas relativos al martirio en la fuente de los dichos, intentando mostrar que el cristianismo asumió y elaboró tradiciones judías relativas al martirio para indicar que la comunidad vivía los últimos tiempos antes del juicio, explicando el sentido de los hechos que acontecían y específicamente de la muerte de Cristo y los cristianos. De manera particular se detiene en el paradigma de la pasión del justo, el cual postula una inversión escatológica de los sujetos del (...) class='Hi'>eschaton que sostiene el carácter bienaventurado de grupos o individuos que son víctimas de la violencia e injusticia. A través de los paradigmas estudiados: el destino violento del profeta y la pasión del justo, los textos muestran una comprensión soteriológica de los sufrimientos y persecución a causa del Hijo del hombre, que funda una nueva perspectiva del martirio. The artick expose different paradigm about martyrdom at the source saying, ttying to show the christianism adopt and elabórate jews tradition about martyrdom for explain that the community lived the last time before the Juice, explaining the significance of the history and specifically de Death of Christ and the Christians. Specifically the artick studies the passion of Righteous, who affirm a eschatological inversion of the people of eschaton that support the happiness character of groups that are violence and injustice’ victims. Across of paradigms studied: the violence destiny of prophet and passion of Righteous the texts show a soteriológical understanding of the suffering and persecution by the son of man, that found a new perspective of martyrdom. (shrink)

El más allá católico ha sido clásicamente figurado como una escena eterna de deslumbramiento ante la contemplación de la revelación del Bonum et Verum. En él, el sujeto se encontrará en un estado de éxtasis pacífico y permanente, ensimismado por la visión de Dios. Estamos ante un imaginario marcado por la pasividad y amenazado de tedio, poco representativo de una existencia auténticamente humana y, mucho menos, divina. Este paradigma está dejando de ser creíble y deseable para el hombre contemporáneo y (...) necesita ser matizado, completado, por otro que acentúe los legítimos rasgos de crecimiento y dinamismo con los que también cabe pensar nuestro éschaton. Las perspectivas de este reto son diversas, aquí trataremos de mostrar, desde la historia de la Teología patrística y medieval, cómo ésta nos ofrece algunos testigos minoritarios, pero enjundiosos, desde los que fundamentar la nueva óptica. (shrink)

In the letters written to the Thessalonians, Paul’s teaching appears to be irreconcilably divided between a still influential Judaic apocalyptic eschatology and (due to Timothy’s considerable influence in the development of the gospel), an emphasis on Hellenistic self-transformation and, in particular, how the philosophy of Epicurus contributed to the psychological health of recent converts. By interpreting the rhetoric of wrath, quiet, sleep, and childbirth, Paul’s teaching as it emerges in 1 and 2 Thessalonians reveals how the gospel must necessarily encounter, (...) agonistically, two foundations of thought. During the early composition of the letters to his churches, Paul struggles ambivalently between the persistence of a Judaic past and its metaphysical promise of a parousia and eschaton, and the realization that Hellenistic philosophy, and Timothy’s Epicurean pastoral care, provides immediate comfort to the well-being of others. (shrink)