路德与现代性:赖纳·施尔曼在破碎霸权中的现代拓扑图

Epoch Pub Date : 2010-10-01 DOI:10.5840/EPOCHE201014213
David J. Kangas
{"title":"路德与现代性:赖纳·施<e:1>尔曼在破碎霸权中的现代拓扑图","authors":"David J. Kangas","doi":"10.5840/EPOCHE201014213","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Prevailing philosophical genealogies of modernity trace its origin to Descartes's metaphysics of representation. This is true of both Hegel and Heidegger. By contrast, Reiner Schurmann's Broken Hegemonies links modernity to the theological thinking of Martin Luther. I ask what is at stake philosophically in this difference. What Schurmann's reading shows is that, under the figure of a passive transcendentalism, Luther inaugurates the epoch in which self-consciousness reigns as an ultimate principle. The broader importance of Schurmann's reading is to identify a \"recessed\" and \"obedient\" side of modernity —a side tragically and covertly linked to its more familiar self-assertive side. Schurmann's re-situating of modernity allows a crucial corrective to many contemporary efforts at a critique of the modern. In particular, it suggests that to restrict one's critique of modernity to the critique of representational or egological consciousness (as happens for example in Heidegger, Levinas and Marion) is to run the risk of a repetition of its obedient, recessed side.","PeriodicalId":202733,"journal":{"name":"Epoch","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Luther and Modernity: Reiner Schürmann’s Topology of the Modern in Broken Hegemonies\",\"authors\":\"David J. Kangas\",\"doi\":\"10.5840/EPOCHE201014213\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Prevailing philosophical genealogies of modernity trace its origin to Descartes's metaphysics of representation. This is true of both Hegel and Heidegger. By contrast, Reiner Schurmann's Broken Hegemonies links modernity to the theological thinking of Martin Luther. I ask what is at stake philosophically in this difference. What Schurmann's reading shows is that, under the figure of a passive transcendentalism, Luther inaugurates the epoch in which self-consciousness reigns as an ultimate principle. The broader importance of Schurmann's reading is to identify a \\\"recessed\\\" and \\\"obedient\\\" side of modernity —a side tragically and covertly linked to its more familiar self-assertive side. Schurmann's re-situating of modernity allows a crucial corrective to many contemporary efforts at a critique of the modern. In particular, it suggests that to restrict one's critique of modernity to the critique of representational or egological consciousness (as happens for example in Heidegger, Levinas and Marion) is to run the risk of a repetition of its obedient, recessed side.\",\"PeriodicalId\":202733,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Epoch\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Epoch\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5840/EPOCHE201014213\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epoch","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/EPOCHE201014213","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

现代性的主流哲学谱系可以追溯到笛卡尔的表象形而上学。黑格尔和海德格尔都是如此。相比之下,赖纳·舒曼的《破碎的霸权》将现代性与马丁·路德的神学思想联系起来。我问,这种差异在哲学上有什么利害关系。舒尔曼的解读表明,在被动先验主义的形象下,路德开创了自我意识作为终极原则统治的时代。舒曼的阅读的更广泛的重要性在于确定现代性“隐伏”和“顺从”的一面——这一面悲剧地和隐蔽地与它更熟悉的自信的一面联系在一起。舒曼对现代性的重新定位,为当代许多批判现代性的努力提供了至关重要的纠正。特别是,它表明,将一个人对现代性的批判限制在对表征意识或自我意识的批判上(就像海德格尔、列维纳斯和马里恩所发生的那样),是在冒着重复其顺从的、凹陷的一面的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Luther and Modernity: Reiner Schürmann’s Topology of the Modern in Broken Hegemonies
Prevailing philosophical genealogies of modernity trace its origin to Descartes's metaphysics of representation. This is true of both Hegel and Heidegger. By contrast, Reiner Schurmann's Broken Hegemonies links modernity to the theological thinking of Martin Luther. I ask what is at stake philosophically in this difference. What Schurmann's reading shows is that, under the figure of a passive transcendentalism, Luther inaugurates the epoch in which self-consciousness reigns as an ultimate principle. The broader importance of Schurmann's reading is to identify a "recessed" and "obedient" side of modernity —a side tragically and covertly linked to its more familiar self-assertive side. Schurmann's re-situating of modernity allows a crucial corrective to many contemporary efforts at a critique of the modern. In particular, it suggests that to restrict one's critique of modernity to the critique of representational or egological consciousness (as happens for example in Heidegger, Levinas and Marion) is to run the risk of a repetition of its obedient, recessed side.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信