Genesis and validity (Genesis and Geltung) can be distinguished and even separated: genesis would be a historical or empirical question; and validity a question of pure reason. But genealogy in Nietzsche’s tradition has challenged this separation. What is the validity of genesis; and what is the genesis of validity? The constellation of genesis and validity are to be analysed. Therefore the theological background has to be remembered: the »original« identity of genesis and validity (in the narration of creation like in (...) salvation). This imaginary identity is dissociated in history. That is why genesis and validity are given »for us« only in difference. Than the pretention of identity is always a little imaginary: may it be the genealogical idea (the genesis is the validity) or vice versa the idea of pure reasons (validity is indifferent to genesis). Beyond the pretention of identity or separation, it is suggested to look for dialectic and furthermore chiastic relations of validity and genesis. Than the question arises: who is in position to draw the distinction between them? Who is »the souvereign« to define the limits of genesis and validity? Is their difference a question of genesis or a question of pure reasons? I suggest: the difference is made by symbolic power and interpretation, more exactly: the relation of genesis and validity is a question of »Deutungsmacht« (symbolic or interpretational power). (shrink)

Selbstgerechtes Wohlwollen in der Psychoanalyse - J. Körner: Mitleid. Das Ende der Empathie - II. Moral und das Böse - P. Stoellger: Lesarten des Bösen - R. Bittner: Verwüstung durch Moral? - III. Moral als Gewalt?

English summary: Thinking about God is theology's main task and the philosophy of religion's most noble. Like almost no other theologian and philosopher of religion, Ingolf U. Dalferth's devotion to it has made the paradigms of current philosophical and theological theory construction fruitful. God, in whom people believe and place their trust, is revealed as the First and the Last, as the beginning without end, and the end that renews everything. This Festschrift's twenty-four studies pick up from Dalferth's work by (...) thinking about God in their own way. The richness of the questions they pose, the plurality of the answers, and the diversity of the religious-philosophical and theological perspectives affirm the worthiness of thinking God. German description: Gott zu denken, ist die zentrale Aufgabe der Theologie und die vornehmste der Religionsphilosophie. Wie kaum ein anderer Theologe und Religionsphilosoph hat sich Ingolf U. Dalferth dieser Aufgabe gewidmet und dafur die aktuellen Paradigmen philosophischer und theologischer Theoriebildung fruchtbar gemacht. Gott, an den Menschen glauben und auf den sie ihre Hoffnung setzen, kommt dem Denken als Erstes und Letztes in den Blick, als Anfang, der noch kein Ende gefunden hat, und als Ende, das alles neu macht.Die vierundzwanzig Studien dieser Festschrift nehmen Dalferths Beitrage auf, indem sie je auf ihre Weise Gott nachdenken. Der Reichtum der von ihnen diskutierten Fragestellungen, die Pluralitat der Antworten und die Vielfalt der religionsphilosophischen und theologischen Perspektiven bekraftigen die Denkwurdigkeit Gottes. (shrink)

Based on the history of the problem of perspectivity, from the origination of the central perspective, its decline in the modern age up to the present plurality of perspectives, the authors of the articles in this volume look into the ...

It is impossible not to discuss the question of time, at least for the philosophy of religion. However, to discuss the question of time is equally impossible, as the various perspectives presented in this volume show. Then what is time? Time is not, and yet everything is within time. Time is, but neither substance nor pure form. Being a dimension of all Being, not even God could or would withdraw from time. The authors of the contributions to this volume discuss (...) the unavoidability of time and its paradoxes, not the least with the purpose of giving time, as a recurring topic for the philosophy of religion. Contributors: Joseph Ballan, Jonna Bornemark, Oystein Brekke, Rebecca Comay, Iben Damgaard, Arne Gron, Jan-Olav Henriksen, Marius Timmann Mjaaland, Carsten Pallesen, Ulrik Houlind Rasmussen, Werner Stegmaier, Philipp Stoellger, Claudia Welz. (shrink)

Everyone would like to have it, many fight for it, some seem to have it, but until now it has not been clear what it actually is: the power of interpretation. In this work, the authors seek to define and conceptualize - in the form of case studies - this term which is frequently used in communicative practice but whose precise meaning often remains obscure. How does the power of interpretation emerge, function and disintegrate, for example in the context of (...) religion and belief systems? Under normal conditions, the power of interpretation is generally recognized and unquestionably adhered to (Torah, Jesus, Scripture). However its emergence and acceptance have still not been adequately studied. The social relevance of the project consists of formulating a differentiated understanding of what happens during cultural conflicts related to the power of interpretation and of how social and mythical forces and representations contribute to the emergence, hegemony and decline of religious content. (shrink)

Genesis and validity ( Genesis and Geltung ) can be distinguished and even separated: genesis would be a historical or empirical question; and validity a question of pure reason. But genealogy in Nietzsche's tradition has challenged this separation. What is the validity of genesis; and what is the genesis of validity? The constellation of genesis and validity are to be analysed. Therefore the theological background has to be remembered: the »original« identity of genesis and validity (in the narration of creation (...) like in salvation). This imaginary identity is dissociated in history. That is why genesis and validity are given »for us« only in difference. Than the pretention of identity is always a little imaginary: may it be the genealogical idea (the genesis is the validity) or vice versa the idea of pure reasons (validity is indifferent to genesis). Beyond the pretention of identity or separation, it is suggested to look for dialectic and furthermore chiastic relations of validity and genesis. Than the question arises: who is in position to draw the distinction between them? Who is »the souvereign« to define the limits of genesis and validity? Is their difference a question of genesis or a question of pure reasons? I suggest: the difference is made by symbolic power and interpretation, more exactly: the relation of genesis and validity is a question of »Deutungsmacht« (symbolic or interpretational power). (shrink)