Weak Thought and Christianity: Some Aspects of Vattimo's Philosophy of Religion, Confrontation with Otakar Funda
The article expresses the philosophical thoughts of an Italian philosopher, G.Vattimo and his development of the philosophy of M. Heidegger and essential aspects of Vattimo's philosophy of religion. In the first part, we clarify Vattimo's interpretation of Heidegger's destruction of t...
| Auteurs: | ; |
|---|---|
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
MDPI
[2015]
|
| Dans: |
Religions
Année: 2015, Volume: 6, Numéro: 3, Pages: 969-987 |
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
Atheism
B Kénose B Interprétation B Otakar Funda B History B weak thought B Vattimo's philosophy of religion B Truth |
| Accès en ligne: |
Accès probablement gratuit Volltext (Verlag) Volltext (doi) |
| Résumé: | The article expresses the philosophical thoughts of an Italian philosopher, G.Vattimo and his development of the philosophy of M. Heidegger and essential aspects of Vattimo's philosophy of religion. In the first part, we clarify Vattimo's interpretation of Heidegger's destruction of traditional metaphysics, the occurrence of ontological difference and the historical process of the oblivion of Being. According to Vattimo, the oblivion of Being is Heidegger's reaction to European nihilism. It brings with it his philosophical questions on metaphysics, the substance of technology and course of technical civilisation. For Vattimo, it was only secularisation which enables one to pose questions about God, sense, and meaning. In a postmodern world, the world of technology and science has an ontological meaning for human beings and awakens them to who they are. In the article, we also focus our attention on some problematic points in his philosophy of religion. The first problem is a conflict among differentiated interpretations. Vattimo claims that kenosis has neither anything in common with indefinite negation of God, nor does it apologise for any interpretation of the Holy Scripture. In addition, he refuses radical demythologisation. In his opinion, there are no necessary reasons to follow this step. There are some authors who have serious reasons for it and the interpretation of kenosis leads to atheism. We will confront Vattimo's philosophy with the thinking of the current Czech atheistic philosopher Otakar Funda. The next problem is a reduction of soteriology on the process of human being's emancipation. There is no place for metaphysical evil here. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2077-1444 |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Religions
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.3390/rel6030969 |