Origin and nature of evil l.jpg
1 / 30

Origin and Nature of Evil.


120 views
Uploaded on:
Category: General / Misc
Description
Origin and Nature of Evil Kant Hegel Kierkegaard Niebuhr Kant -- Hegel -- Kierkegaard Kant tries to secularize the Augustinian/Lutheran conception of original sin.
Transcripts
Slide 1

Cause and Nature of Evil Kant Hegel Kierkegaard Niebuhr

Slide 2

Kant - Hegel - Kierkegaard Kant tries to secularize the Augustinian/Lutheran origination of unique sin. Hegel sees sin & blame (“the despondent conscience”) as a contention ridden stage through which we must go as we move toward philosophical edification. Kierkegaard rejects Hegel’s relativizing of Christian confidence to a unimportant stage.

Slide 3

Kant No chronicled fall. Adam/Eve a myth. Human instinct is great. The law of profound quality stays substantial, not annulled or denied. General, intrinsic inclination toward wickedness. Malice is extremely unobtrusive (guileful, including self-misleading). Ethical quality includes the inward inspiration (the need of good rule over slant), not simply outside adjustment to good principles.

Slide 4

Origin of shrewdness is an insoluble riddle 1. Detestable can't be resulting or parallel to the will, from that point forward there would be no clarification of the all inclusiveness of sin. 2. Be that as it may, abhorrent can't go before the will either, since it should either be a piece of our tendency or outside our temperament. (an) If shrewdness is a piece of our temperament, then the ethical law no more applies to us, and abhorrence couldn't even now be detestable. (b) If abhorrence is not some piece of our inclination, then the malevolent we do is the consequence of this outsider interruption, and we are not by any means mindful.

Slide 5

The Noumenal versus the Phenomenal Kant determines this oddity by recognizing our genuine self (unadulterated mind, existing past the limits of time and space) and our evident or “phenomenal” self (whose character clearly develops continuously through time). The noumenal self activities genuine, uncaused through and through freedom, that conveys what needs be in the normally created conduct of the sensational self. The birthplace of malevolence is pushed past the limits of sense & time.

Slide 6

Kant’s answer for the issue of malevolence Moral self-change through a reasonable confidence. We can "atone" for our wrongdoings through the acknowledgment of misery. Appears to be conflicting with Kant’s assertion of the “insidious” and “inextirpable” character of sin. Answer: some of Kant’s reverberating of conventional Christian dialect is not to be taken actually. Maybe he didn’t truly trust that transgression was both radical and all inclusive.

Slide 7

G. W. F. Hegel (mid nineteenth century) Developmental hypothesis of sin. Sin results from an important clash between distinction (self-affirmation, stiff necked attitude) and all inclusiveness (laws, standards).

Slide 8

Hegel’s Solution Philosophical comprehension accommodates this restriction through a sort of polytheism. We understand that the widespread cases of profound quality are not something originating from outside ourselves: we are God, and God is us.

Slide 9

Kierkegaard: Agreement with Kant 1. Unique sin is not only an acquired condition, coming about because of a verifiable fall. 2. All wrongdoing is the exercise's consequence of human opportunity. 3. Human instinct is not invalidated through sin. 4. Sin is a widespread wonder. 5. Inception of sin is a puzzle: "sin presupposes itself".

Slide 10

Disagreement with Kant There is no “noumenal” self: individuals basically “exist” (in time). Insignificant self-change is not a satisfactory arrangement. The arrangement includes going past human reason (past a Religion inside of the Bounds of Reason Alone )

Slide 11

Agreement with Hegel 1. Sin is a sort of formative stage - essential in the event that we are to achieve the larger amount. 2. Sin does speak to a contention in the middle of distinction and all inclusiveness, and both are vital.

Slide 12

Disagreement with Hegel 1. We are not parts or parts of God (the Absolute). The differentiation between our corruption and God's sacredness is genuine, not only obvious. 2. Philosophical thought about a pantheistic sort offers no practical arrangement, since it denies our genuine presence as people in space and time.

Slide 13

3. There is no changeless answer for sin: the move from sin to confidence must be constantly rehashed we would say. We never basically desert sin and blame.

Slide 14

Kierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments An idea trial, starting with a solitary theory, What if? Imagine a scenario where: we start existence without reality (the vital truth about who we are), and without even the state of finding reality all alone. What might take after from this speculation?

Slide 15

Upshot of the Experiment Kierkegaard recreates the greater part of customary Christian religious philosophy during the time spent noting this inquiry. This is the reason his “critic” toward the area's end blames the creator for being an imposter (imagining that he has quite recently designed what is actually Christian religious philosophy).

Slide 16

Kierkegaard's existentialism 1. Human presence is a matter of living through time, which includes having a story or history to one's life. 2. In this way, the focal test of human life is that of constructing so as to "becom a self" and keeping up the story's congruity of one's life through time, regardless of changes.

Slide 17

3. This solidarity or progression of one's life-history is either a solidarity with God or against God. In the event that it does exclude God, it fundamentally prohibits Him.

Slide 18

4. In this manner, human life starts either in a condition of solidarity with God or of resistance to God. In the first case, knowing reality (around oneself and God) is a matter of memory (making unequivocal what you definitely know, where it counts). In the second case, knowing reality includes learning it through an occasion (the occasion) - an experience with God in time (= confidence).

Slide 19

5. Be that as it may, human life can't start in congruity with God, for two reasons: (a) This unique concordance would devastate our interesting uniqueness. Each of us would be gobbled up in God's being. (b) This unique concordance would make it inconceivable for us to experience God as an Other. We would be not able to have an interpersonal association with God.

Slide 20

6. Along these lines, memory is not the street to truth - confidence is. 7. For confidence to be conceivable, God (the interminable) must defy us in time, through some kind of incarnation. 8. Such an incarnation of the endless in time is confusing - objectively immense.

Slide 21

9. When we experience God's self-disclosure in time (the incarnation), we first get to be mindful we could call our own resistance to God. Blame and the awareness of sin is the first aftereffect of the experience with God. 10. The answer for sin is confidence, the oddity's acknowledgment.

Slide 22

Reinhold Niebuhr A main American scholar of the twentieth century. Started as a Christian communist and pacificist. Upheld WW II against Nazis, established the Americans for Democratic Action. Moved toward “Christian realism”, a present day variant of Augustinianism.

Slide 23

The Easy Conscience of Modern Man Modern man prevents the truth from securing malevolence Three structures: Romantic naturalists (Helvetius, Rousseau) Scientific progressivists (F. Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, Skinner, Wilson) Rationalists (Spinoza, Hegel, Whitehead)

Slide 24

Romantic Optimists Human nature is completely great, as designed organically. Underhandedness is the result of particular, notable circumstances. Helvetius (Renaissance), Machiavelli: sorted out religion, political despots, confusion Rousseau: society, dialect, property Marx: private responsibility for

Slide 25

Progressivists Evil is the aftereffect of imperfections in nature, correctable through human office, creativity. F. Bacon: exploratory information Hobbes, Locke: social contract Bentham, Mill: change society through better strategy, training Dewey, Skinner: social fall of sociologies behind common sciences

Slide 26

Rationalists Human creatures rise above nature through reason, deep sense of being. Malevolence results when we are overcome by sub-sound nature, interests, conceit. Spinoza (no advance, no genuine insidiousness) Evil will vanish as humankind advances toward more prominent objectivity & most profound sense of being: Hegel, Whitehead

Slide 27

Niebuhr’s Critique of Romantics Romantic hopefulness is self-opposing: if human instinct is completely great, where did the malicious social foundations originate from that misshape that nature? These were delivered by evidently great people in past. Yet, the formation of oppression and abuse are themselves unmistakably insidious.

Slide 28

Niebuhr’s Critique of Progressivists Their position is likewise self-conflicting: if people are by nature unmindful, silly, and egotistical, in what manner can science and political change be conceivable? The investigative reformer (Skinner, Wilson) dependably conflictingly exempts himself from the extent of “nature”.

Slide 29

Niebuhr’s Critique of Rationalists These come the nearest to reality, since they do recognize the truth of malice. Then again, they wrongly envision that flexibility and reason are constantly blameless. Truth be told, the best indecencies are the item not of creature interests but rather distorted most profound sense of being. Nothing inescapable around a development toward goodness.

Slide 30

Freud - the Consistent Pessimist Freud trusted that what’s amiss with humankind is hopeless: the befuddle between the requests of acculturated life and our against social creature natures. Dissimilar to Rousseau, he had no sentimental illusions about the primitive life. Not at all like progressivists and pragmatists, he had not illusions about what's to come. Then again, Freud likewise precluded the truth from claiming good fiendishne