《灵性与精神病学》述评

Warren A. Kinghorn
{"title":"《灵性与精神病学》述评","authors":"Warren A. Kinghorn","doi":"10.1080/15228967.2012.700222","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"changeling—which Goodey suggests is the most immediate precursor to modern notions of those with congenital intellectual disability—turned on debates regarding the origin of the soul. As the emerging consensus was that changelings had the material form of human nature but not its substance (lacking, for Locke, intellectual or rational capacities), traducianists (who insisted that human souls were derived from their parents’) were left with the difficult task of explaining the aborted transference of souls from parents to these “children” while infusionists (who held that human souls were divinely imparted to the fetus after conception) were hard-pressed to avoid the conclusion that God was responsible for the resulting “lumps of flesh.” However, although Locke himself distinguished between human beings with impaired capacities to reason abstractly (what marked true human nature) and changelings who were without these capacities altogether, the die had been cast: idiots were those whose abstractive powers were marred, which meant that their status as human beings and persons were questionable. Goodey’s major thesis throughout is to argue that both intelligence and intellectual disability are historically contingent constructions. His book is a tour de force toward this end. One could go further and see that our modern understanding of the individual itself emerges simultaneously with that of contemporary notions of intelligence and intellectual disability. Yet from a theological perspective, one comes away with a rather pessimistic conclusion: that there is no way to avoid, psychologically speaking, the association between intellectual disability and evil as human beings have traditionally understood it. Perhaps what is redemptive in turn is that if these negative associations are historical contingencies, then perhaps it still may be possible for positive constructions to emerge. Might Goodey’s volume be a catalyst for the latter? Amos Yong, PhD J. Rodman Williams Professor of Theology Regent University School of Divinity Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA","PeriodicalId":218195,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Religion, Disability & Health","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Review of ‘Spirituality and Psychiatry’\",\"authors\":\"Warren A. Kinghorn\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15228967.2012.700222\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"changeling—which Goodey suggests is the most immediate precursor to modern notions of those with congenital intellectual disability—turned on debates regarding the origin of the soul. As the emerging consensus was that changelings had the material form of human nature but not its substance (lacking, for Locke, intellectual or rational capacities), traducianists (who insisted that human souls were derived from their parents’) were left with the difficult task of explaining the aborted transference of souls from parents to these “children” while infusionists (who held that human souls were divinely imparted to the fetus after conception) were hard-pressed to avoid the conclusion that God was responsible for the resulting “lumps of flesh.” However, although Locke himself distinguished between human beings with impaired capacities to reason abstractly (what marked true human nature) and changelings who were without these capacities altogether, the die had been cast: idiots were those whose abstractive powers were marred, which meant that their status as human beings and persons were questionable. Goodey’s major thesis throughout is to argue that both intelligence and intellectual disability are historically contingent constructions. His book is a tour de force toward this end. One could go further and see that our modern understanding of the individual itself emerges simultaneously with that of contemporary notions of intelligence and intellectual disability. Yet from a theological perspective, one comes away with a rather pessimistic conclusion: that there is no way to avoid, psychologically speaking, the association between intellectual disability and evil as human beings have traditionally understood it. Perhaps what is redemptive in turn is that if these negative associations are historical contingencies, then perhaps it still may be possible for positive constructions to emerge. Might Goodey’s volume be a catalyst for the latter? Amos Yong, PhD J. Rodman Williams Professor of Theology Regent University School of Divinity Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA\",\"PeriodicalId\":218195,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Religion, Disability & Health\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Religion, Disability & Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15228967.2012.700222\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Religion, Disability & Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15228967.2012.700222","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

换生灵——Goodey认为这是现代关于先天智力缺陷概念的最直接的先驱——引发了关于灵魂起源的争论。随着人们逐渐形成共识,换生灵具有人类本性的物质形式,但没有其实质(对洛克来说,缺乏智力或理性能力),异端论者(他们坚持认为人类的灵魂来自父母)面临着解释灵魂从父母转移到这些“孩子”的困难任务,而灌输论者(他们认为人类的灵魂是在怀孕后被神圣地赋予胎儿的)则很难避免上帝对由此产生的“肉块”负责的结论。然而,尽管洛克自己区分了抽象推理能力受损的人(标志着真正的人性)和完全没有这些能力的换生灵,但事实已成定局:白痴是那些抽象能力受损的人,这意味着他们作为人类和人的地位值得怀疑。古迪贯穿始终的主要论点是,智力和智力残疾都是历史上偶然的结构。他的书是这方面的杰作。我们可以进一步看到,我们对个体本身的现代理解与当代智力和智力残疾的概念同时出现。然而,从神学的角度来看,人们得出了一个相当悲观的结论:从心理学上讲,没有办法避免人类传统上所理解的智力残疾与邪恶之间的联系。也许反过来说,如果这些消极的联系是历史偶然事件,那么也许积极的结构仍然有可能出现。古迪的销量会成为后者的催化剂吗?Amos Yong,美国维吉尼亚州维吉尼亚海滩摄政大学神学院J. Rodman Williams神学教授
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Review of ‘Spirituality and Psychiatry’
changeling—which Goodey suggests is the most immediate precursor to modern notions of those with congenital intellectual disability—turned on debates regarding the origin of the soul. As the emerging consensus was that changelings had the material form of human nature but not its substance (lacking, for Locke, intellectual or rational capacities), traducianists (who insisted that human souls were derived from their parents’) were left with the difficult task of explaining the aborted transference of souls from parents to these “children” while infusionists (who held that human souls were divinely imparted to the fetus after conception) were hard-pressed to avoid the conclusion that God was responsible for the resulting “lumps of flesh.” However, although Locke himself distinguished between human beings with impaired capacities to reason abstractly (what marked true human nature) and changelings who were without these capacities altogether, the die had been cast: idiots were those whose abstractive powers were marred, which meant that their status as human beings and persons were questionable. Goodey’s major thesis throughout is to argue that both intelligence and intellectual disability are historically contingent constructions. His book is a tour de force toward this end. One could go further and see that our modern understanding of the individual itself emerges simultaneously with that of contemporary notions of intelligence and intellectual disability. Yet from a theological perspective, one comes away with a rather pessimistic conclusion: that there is no way to avoid, psychologically speaking, the association between intellectual disability and evil as human beings have traditionally understood it. Perhaps what is redemptive in turn is that if these negative associations are historical contingencies, then perhaps it still may be possible for positive constructions to emerge. Might Goodey’s volume be a catalyst for the latter? Amos Yong, PhD J. Rodman Williams Professor of Theology Regent University School of Divinity Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信