否定主体性:为什么赖特的批判现实主义不够批判

IF 1.3 3区 哲学 0 RELIGION
Aaron K. Chidgzey
{"title":"否定主体性:为什么赖特的批判现实主义不够批判","authors":"Aaron K. Chidgzey","doi":"10.1163/17455197-bja10022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThis analysis of N. T. Wright’s epistemological model – labelled critical realism – argues that Wright has lamentably failed the ambitious goal of mediating the two epistemic poles of external ‘objective’ reality and internal ‘subjective’ interpretation. The issues raised by scholars of the so-called ‘critical’ end of the dichotomy have subsequently failed to be considered to any significant degree and, instead, Wright ultimately reverts to an objectivist realism of the sort he decries. He privileges the assumptions on the ‘realism’ end and merely gestures toward the critical. This becomes especially clear in his study of Jesus’ resurrection, where his apologetic and historical discussions demonstrate a reliance upon an assumed objectivist and empiricist methodology.","PeriodicalId":51987,"journal":{"name":"Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Subjugating Subjectivity: Why Wright’s Critical Realism is Not Critical Enough\",\"authors\":\"Aaron K. Chidgzey\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/17455197-bja10022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nThis analysis of N. T. Wright’s epistemological model – labelled critical realism – argues that Wright has lamentably failed the ambitious goal of mediating the two epistemic poles of external ‘objective’ reality and internal ‘subjective’ interpretation. The issues raised by scholars of the so-called ‘critical’ end of the dichotomy have subsequently failed to be considered to any significant degree and, instead, Wright ultimately reverts to an objectivist realism of the sort he decries. He privileges the assumptions on the ‘realism’ end and merely gestures toward the critical. This becomes especially clear in his study of Jesus’ resurrection, where his apologetic and historical discussions demonstrate a reliance upon an assumed objectivist and empiricist methodology.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51987,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/17455197-bja10022\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/17455197-bja10022","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对N.T.Wright的认识论模型——被称为批判现实主义——的分析认为,Wright可悲地未能实现调和外部“客观”现实和内部“主观”解释这两个认识极的宏伟目标。学者们提出的所谓“批判”二分法的问题随后没有得到任何重大的考虑,相反,赖特最终回到了他所谴责的那种客观主义现实主义。他把这些假设放在“现实主义”的一端,而仅仅是对批判的姿态。这一点在他对耶稣复活的研究中变得尤为明显,他的道歉和历史讨论表明了对假定的客观主义和经验主义方法的依赖。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Subjugating Subjectivity: Why Wright’s Critical Realism is Not Critical Enough
This analysis of N. T. Wright’s epistemological model – labelled critical realism – argues that Wright has lamentably failed the ambitious goal of mediating the two epistemic poles of external ‘objective’ reality and internal ‘subjective’ interpretation. The issues raised by scholars of the so-called ‘critical’ end of the dichotomy have subsequently failed to be considered to any significant degree and, instead, Wright ultimately reverts to an objectivist realism of the sort he decries. He privileges the assumptions on the ‘realism’ end and merely gestures toward the critical. This becomes especially clear in his study of Jesus’ resurrection, where his apologetic and historical discussions demonstrate a reliance upon an assumed objectivist and empiricist methodology.
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
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
期刊介绍: The Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus provides an international forum for the academic discussion of Jesus within the context of first-century Palestine. The journal is accessible to all who are interested in how this complex topic has been addressed in the past and how it is approached today. The journal investigates the social, cultural and historical context in which Jesus lived, discusses methodological issues surrounding the reconstruction of the historical Jesus, examines the history of research on Jesus and explores how the life of Jesus has been portrayed in the arts and other media.
×
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