罪恶、贫困和早期现代人

Samuel J Newlands
{"title":"罪恶、贫困和早期现代人","authors":"Samuel J Newlands","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780199915453.003.0016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter focuses on the concept of evil in the works of early modern rationalists—especially Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz. Prior to the seventeenth century, there was a consensus among medieval Christians that evil was a privation of goodness. By the eighteenth century, privation theory had been mostly abandoned by leading theists. How and why did this conceptual shift occur? I first explore the nature and role of privation theory in medieval accounts of evil. I then turn to the early modern criticisms of this once dominant concept of evil and trace its abandonment. I conclude by wondering whether the early modern eclipse of privation theory has been wholly salutary for theists.","PeriodicalId":318625,"journal":{"name":"Evil","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evils, Privations, and the Early Moderns\",\"authors\":\"Samuel J Newlands\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/OSO/9780199915453.003.0016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter focuses on the concept of evil in the works of early modern rationalists—especially Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz. Prior to the seventeenth century, there was a consensus among medieval Christians that evil was a privation of goodness. By the eighteenth century, privation theory had been mostly abandoned by leading theists. How and why did this conceptual shift occur? I first explore the nature and role of privation theory in medieval accounts of evil. I then turn to the early modern criticisms of this once dominant concept of evil and trace its abandonment. I conclude by wondering whether the early modern eclipse of privation theory has been wholly salutary for theists.\",\"PeriodicalId\":318625,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evil\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evil\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780199915453.003.0016\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evil","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780199915453.003.0016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

这一章主要关注早期现代理性主义者作品中的邪恶概念,尤其是笛卡尔、斯宾诺莎和莱布尼茨。在17世纪之前,中世纪的基督徒一致认为邪恶是善的匮乏。到了18世纪,贫困理论已经被主要的有神论者所抛弃。这种观念上的转变是如何以及为什么发生的?我首先探讨了贫困理论在中世纪对邪恶的描述中的本质和作用。然后,我转向对这个曾经占主导地位的邪恶概念的早期现代批评,并追溯其被抛弃的过程。最后,我想知道近代早期贫困理论的衰落是否对有神论者完全有益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evils, Privations, and the Early Moderns
This chapter focuses on the concept of evil in the works of early modern rationalists—especially Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz. Prior to the seventeenth century, there was a consensus among medieval Christians that evil was a privation of goodness. By the eighteenth century, privation theory had been mostly abandoned by leading theists. How and why did this conceptual shift occur? I first explore the nature and role of privation theory in medieval accounts of evil. I then turn to the early modern criticisms of this once dominant concept of evil and trace its abandonment. I conclude by wondering whether the early modern eclipse of privation theory has been wholly salutary for theists.
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