Henry More against the Lurianic Kabbalah. The Arguments in the Fundamenta

IF 0.1 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Giuliana Di Biase
{"title":"Henry More against the Lurianic Kabbalah. The Arguments in the Fundamenta","authors":"Giuliana Di Biase","doi":"10.3280/sf2022-001002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Cambridge Platonist Henry More was fiercely averse to the Lurianic Kabbalah, with which he became acquainted through the two tomes of the Kabbala denudata (1677; 1684). More contributed to the first tome substantially and was highly influential in shaping the reception of this work, edited by Christian Knorr von Rosenroth. He denounced the incompatibility of the Christian religion with Luria's system and in his last contribution, the Fundamenta, he put forward an apagogical argument meant to show the inconsistency of Luria's teaching. The article aims at exploring the nature of More's argument so as to highlight the philosophical essence of his criticism, the intention of which was to emphasize the incompatibility of the Kabbalah with any form of rational speculation. Luria's doctrine appeared to More to be a compromise between materialism and spiritualism, a sort of hybrid theory that was even worse than materialism, given its misleading theistic appearance as well as the lack of internal coherence. This compromise was also morally unacceptable, being symptomatic of weakness of the will.","PeriodicalId":42923,"journal":{"name":"RIVISTA DI STORIA DELLA FILOSOFIA","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"RIVISTA DI STORIA DELLA FILOSOFIA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3280/sf2022-001002","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Cambridge Platonist Henry More was fiercely averse to the Lurianic Kabbalah, with which he became acquainted through the two tomes of the Kabbala denudata (1677; 1684). More contributed to the first tome substantially and was highly influential in shaping the reception of this work, edited by Christian Knorr von Rosenroth. He denounced the incompatibility of the Christian religion with Luria's system and in his last contribution, the Fundamenta, he put forward an apagogical argument meant to show the inconsistency of Luria's teaching. The article aims at exploring the nature of More's argument so as to highlight the philosophical essence of his criticism, the intention of which was to emphasize the incompatibility of the Kabbalah with any form of rational speculation. Luria's doctrine appeared to More to be a compromise between materialism and spiritualism, a sort of hybrid theory that was even worse than materialism, given its misleading theistic appearance as well as the lack of internal coherence. This compromise was also morally unacceptable, being symptomatic of weakness of the will.
亨利·莫尔反对卢里亚式的卡巴拉。基要论
剑桥柏拉图主义者亨利·莫尔(Henry More)强烈反对卢里亚式的卡巴拉,他通过卡巴拉的两卷书(1677;1684)。更多的贡献了大量的第一部巨著,并在塑造这部作品的接受极具影响力,由克里斯蒂安·克诺尔·冯·罗森罗斯编辑。他谴责基督教与卢里亚的体系不相容,在他最后的贡献,基要论,他提出了一个护教的论点,旨在表明卢里亚的教学的不一致。本文旨在探讨莫尔的论点的本质,以突出他的批评的哲学本质,其意图是强调卡巴拉与任何形式的理性推测的不兼容性。在莫尔看来,卢里亚的学说是唯物主义和唯心论之间的妥协,是一种比唯物主义更糟糕的混合理论,因为它具有误导人的有神论外表,而且缺乏内在的连贯性。这种妥协在道德上也是不可接受的,是意志软弱的表现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: Fondata nel 1946 da Mario Dal Pra, La rivista di storia della filosofia si è presto distinta, in Italia e all’estero, per aver affrontato con novità di ipotesi e con rigoroso riscontro filologico, temi e problemi dell’intera tradizione storica del pensiero occidentale. Ha dedicato fascicoli monografici al pensiero di Dewey, Russel, Carnap, Vailati, Hobbes , Hume, Aristotele, Epicuro, Abelardo, Husserl, Kant e Hegel; ha pubblicato e pubblica studi sui problemi di maggiore interesse della storia del pensiero; rende noti testi inediti e documenti; affronta l’esame degli aspetti più significativi del dibattito filosofico contemporaneo.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信