首页> 外文学位 >Recurrence of the perennial encounter? al -Ghazali and Ibn Rushd on God's knowledge.
【24h】

Recurrence of the perennial encounter? al -Ghazali and Ibn Rushd on God's knowledge.

机译:常年相遇复发? al -Ghazali和Ibn Rushd对上帝的认识。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

The issue of divine knowledge has long been one of the formidably controversial subjects of both philosophy and theology. Thus modern scholarship has described al-Ghazali as a representative of theological perspective and Ibn Rushd a representative of philosophical one in the classical period of Islamic philosophy. The investigation of how al-Ghazali and Ibn Rushd conceived of divine knowledge reveals that the former's fundamental incentive for attacking philosophy should not necessarily be described as theological. Rather, in the final analysis, it becomes clear that al-Ghazali repudiated the philosophers not because he thought that they put forth their philosophical conclusions with no theological basis, but because the philosophers uprooted religion and belittled religious experience by advancing propositions that basically divest the God of religion of His attributes that are required of the deity to have a relationship with the created. Thus the main point of criticisms leveled by al-Ghazali against the philosophers was a purely religious one with no theological speculative concerns. Therefore, from al-Ghazali's point of view, the problem was the onto-theology of the philosophers.;Ibn Rushd on the other hand does not seem to rebuke al-Ghazali for his non-philosophical bases of his views. Rather, Ibn Rushd points out that al-Ghazali used philosophical method but inaccurately. It becomes also clear that Ibn Rushd understood well his opponent's point about the philosophers belittling religion. Hence he set out to design a new role for religion. Distinguishing between the inner and external meanings of the Scripture, Ibn Rushd confined religion to its external meaning and delegated it to the masses. He established a connection between philosophy and religion through the inner meaning of the scripture and made the investigation of this inner meaning exclusive to the philosophers. In the end, he defined religion anew and gave it a different role. This design ultimately reflects Ibn Rushd's sensitivity over protecting the religious experience of the masses with the God of religion, and keeping philosophy for those who are properly educated.
机译:长期以来,关于神的知识的问题一直是哲学和神学都备受争议的话题之一。因此,现代学者将加扎里描述为神学观点的代表,而伊本·拉什德则将其描述为伊斯兰哲学古典时期的哲学代表。对al-Ghazali和Ibn Rushd如何理解神圣知识的研究表明,前者攻击哲学的根本动机不一定要描述为神学。相反,在最终的分析中,很明显的是,加扎里拒绝哲学家不是因为他认为他们没有任何神学基础就提出了他们的哲学结论,而是因为哲学家通过推进基本上剥夺了宗教信仰的主张而使宗教连根拔起并贬低了宗教经验。上帝所信奉的宗教神,是神与被造物有关系的必要条件。因此,加扎里对哲学家的批评的主要观点是纯粹的宗教信仰,没有神学上的投机性关注。因此,从加扎里的角度来看,问题在于哲学家的本体论神学。另一方面,伊本·拉什德似乎并没有斥责加扎里的非哲学基础。相反,伊本·拉什德(Ibn Rushd)指出,加扎里(al-Ghazali)使用的是哲学方法,但并不准确。同样显而易见的是,伊本·拉什德(Ibn Rushd)很好地理解了他的反对者关于贬低宗教的哲学家的观点。因此,他着手设计宗教的新角色。伊本·拉什德(Ibn Rushd)区分圣经的内在含义和外在含义,将宗教局限于其外在含义,并将其委托给群众。他通过经文的内在意义在哲学和宗教之间建立了联系,并使对这种内在意义的研究仅限于哲学家。最后,他重新定义了宗教并赋予了不同的角色。这种设计最终反映了伊本·拉什德(Ibn Rushd)在保护群众与宗教神的宗教经历以及为受过适当教育的人们保留哲学方面的敏感性。

著录项

  • 作者

    Terkan, Fehrullah.;

  • 作者单位

    The University of Chicago.;

  • 授予单位 The University of Chicago.;
  • 学科 Theology.;Religion Philosophy of.;Philosophy.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2004
  • 页码 293 p.
  • 总页数 293
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 宗教;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号