并非如此虚荣:汉娜·阿伦特对《传道书》的接受

P. M. Lasater
{"title":"并非如此虚荣:汉娜·阿伦特对《传道书》的接受","authors":"P. M. Lasater","doi":"10.1515/jbr-2019-0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Although Hannah Arendt only explicitly references the book of Ecclesiastes in order to contrast its views with her own, she and Qoheleth parallel each other on substantive issues. After showing how an influential translation of a key motif from Ecclesiastes led Arendt to misapprehend Qoheleth, this study unpacks their intellectual common ground on matters of affirming worldly life; the nature of action; and critical views of the human heart. Yet this third area which addresses human nature also highlights a divergence between them on how thinking relates to the problem of evil.","PeriodicalId":17249,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Bible and its Reception","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Not So Vain After All: Hannah Arendt’s Reception of Ecclesiastes\",\"authors\":\"P. M. Lasater\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/jbr-2019-0002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Although Hannah Arendt only explicitly references the book of Ecclesiastes in order to contrast its views with her own, she and Qoheleth parallel each other on substantive issues. After showing how an influential translation of a key motif from Ecclesiastes led Arendt to misapprehend Qoheleth, this study unpacks their intellectual common ground on matters of affirming worldly life; the nature of action; and critical views of the human heart. Yet this third area which addresses human nature also highlights a divergence between them on how thinking relates to the problem of evil.\",\"PeriodicalId\":17249,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Bible and its Reception\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Bible and its Reception\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/jbr-2019-0002\",\"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 the Bible and its Reception","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jbr-2019-0002","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

虽然汉娜·阿伦特只是明确地引用了《传道书》,以便将其观点与自己的观点进行对比,但她和《先知》在实质性问题上是相似的。在展示了对《传道书》中一个关键主题的有影响力的翻译如何导致阿伦特误解了先知之后,本研究揭示了他们在肯定世俗生活问题上的知识共同点;行为的性质;以及对人类心脏的批判观点。然而,这第三个涉及人性的领域也突出了他们在思考与邪恶问题之间的分歧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Not So Vain After All: Hannah Arendt’s Reception of Ecclesiastes
Abstract Although Hannah Arendt only explicitly references the book of Ecclesiastes in order to contrast its views with her own, she and Qoheleth parallel each other on substantive issues. After showing how an influential translation of a key motif from Ecclesiastes led Arendt to misapprehend Qoheleth, this study unpacks their intellectual common ground on matters of affirming worldly life; the nature of action; and critical views of the human heart. Yet this third area which addresses human nature also highlights a divergence between them on how thinking relates to the problem of evil.
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