The rise of a collective conscience of a new epoch, the Anthropocene, has brought to the fore scientists’ predictions of irreversible damage done to the Earth’s ecosystems within barely a decade. The passive attitude worldwide of placing the task of overcoming the evil consequences of human activity on specialized forums has already proved to be insufficient. In this context, Hamilton seeks to continue Becker’s project of laying down the foundations of an “anthropodicy,” seen as a humanistic science meant to (...) bring a participatory dimension to the humanity’s dealing with the degradation of the conditions of civilized life on Earth. (shrink)

Suffering is often experienced by those who obey God, while happiness is experienced by those who do not know God. This study aims to re-examine theodicy about disasters and calamities and tries to provide alternative thoughts regarding the relationship between God, accidents and humans, based on the story of Job. This research methodology is a qualitative approach through library research, by reading books and journals and investigating related books. Hermeneutic principles are also used to understand the meaning of the signs (...) and symbols in the text. The results of this study indicate that the concept of anthropodicy stands as a complement to the idea of theodicy, which can help humans - especially believers - to understand the meaning of suffering and their vocation in a world full of uncertainty while still having faith in God, who is sovereign over all.Contribution: This article contributes to providing an understanding of anthropodicy from Job’s perspective, so that humans see suffering as God’s sovereignty and as something that God allows in order to see God’s omnipotence. (shrink)

The paper focuses on the problem of anthropodicy in the philosophical system of Hermann Cohen and its interpretation by Jacob Gordin (1896—1947). Gordin was one of the last followers of Cohen in Russia. He developes his interpretation in the lecture “Anthropodicy”, which was given in the Philosophical Circle at the Petrograd University in December 1921. For the study of the problem of anthropodicy he was apparently inspired by the discussions at the Free Philosophical Association in 1919—1921. Gordin (...) places Cohen’s concept of man in the wide intellectual context given by the ideas of the Russian religious philosophy, German classical philosophy, Neo-Kantianism, and the West European and Jewish mysticism (cabbala). Gordin compares Cohen’s anthropodicy with Vladimir Soloviev’s one and shows that there is a similarity in their approaches. Both philosophers point out that the justification of man is possible only in form of the justification of humanity and not as for Berdyaiev in form of the justification of personality. But Gordin uses Soloviev’s concept of all-unity and Berdyaiev’s concept of creativity in order to “improve” Cohen’s conception and to reveal the contribution of a person to the justification of humanity. Stronger as Cohen Gordin connects the programm of anthropodicy with individuality and underlines the participation of the individual in creating culture. (shrink)

The paper focuses on the problem of anthropodicy in the philosophical system of Hermann Cohen and its interpretation by Jacob Gordin (1896—1947). Gordin was one of the last followers of Cohen in Russia. He developes his interpretation in the lecture “Anthropodicy”, which was given in the Philosophical Circle at the Petrograd University in December 1921. For the study of the problem of anthropodicy he was apparently inspired by the discussions at the Free Philosophical Association in 1919—1921. Gordin (...) places Cohen’s concept of man in the wide intellectual context given by the ideas of the Russian religious philosophy, German classical philosophy, Neo-Kantianism, and the West European and Jewish mysticism (cabbala). Gordin compares Cohen’s anthropodicy with Vladimir Soloviev’s one and shows that there is a similarity in their approaches. Both philosophers point out that the justification of man is possible only in form of the justification of humanity and not as for Berdyaiev in form of the justification of personality. But Gordin uses Soloviev’s concept of all-unity and Berdyaiev’s concept of creativity in order to “improve” Cohen’s conception and to reveal the contribution of a person to the justification of humanity. Stronger as Cohen Gordin connects the programm of anthropodicy with individuality and underlines the participation of the individual in creating culture. (shrink)

Whatever the current philosophic fashion, you always know that Descartes is still alive and well and living in France. The perennial presence of French reflectivephilosophy since the early decades of this cntury is witness to this. Louis Lavelle belongs to this tradition known as French spiritualism. The following article is an excellent summary of his thought and of some of the basic characteristics of the whole tradition. Edouard Morot-Sir in a recent book has characterized the present form of this tradition (...) as "a critical consciousness in search of an anthropodicy" . Jean Nabert could just as well have been speaking for Louis Lavelle as for himself when he wrote, "the more clear the perception of finitenessbecomes, the sharper becomes the need for a justification which includes a demand for the unconditional. This reciprocal relationship is the very stuff ofself-consciousness" . Louis Lavelle's importance for today is that with his philosophy of "consent to being," "freedom," "primary affirmation"and "total presence" he shows us how to avoid the contemporary trap of being caught in the antinomy of transcendence and immanence. An overall presentationof his thought by Wesley Piersol, together with some selections and a bibliography, can be found in the Fall 1965 issue of Philosophy Today. Gilbert Hardy has more recently contributed two studies of Lavelle's philosophy: "Louis Lavelle on Freedom and Participation" and "Louis Lavelle on the Mystery of Freedom". (shrink)

While Christian approaches to the problem of evil have been much discussed, the issue of theodicy in Islam is relatively neglected. This book discusses possible solutions to theodicy and the problem of evil through the early philosophy and theology of Islam as well as through a semantic analysis of evil in the Qur’ān. Reflecting on Said Nursi’s magnum opus, the Risale-i Nur Collection (Epistles of Light), Yesilhark Ozkan puts Nursi’s theodicy into discourse with so called ‘secular’ theodicy or ‘anthropodicy’. (...) Her study offers a fascinating new perspective on the problem of evil for scholars of comparative religion, philosophy of religion, and Islamic thought. (shrink)

For the sake of completeness, Kant’s teleological thinking should cover not only what is purposive, but also what is contrapurposive. Kant fulfils this systematic requirement by means of the concept of theodicy, which is typical of his general critical parting from traditional Metaphysics. Within the transcendental framework of the teleological reflection upon world and nature, theodicy could no longer proceed theoretically and speculatively, but had to gain a new foundation on practical grounds. And insofar as, within this framework, the standpoint (...) of God is made dependent on the human cognitive faculties, theodicy could no longer count as a theo-, but should instead become an anthropodicy. To show this, I rely on the conceptual pair “doctrinal – authentic” and I argue that the former is not a description of traditional theodicies (as is held in the relevant literature), but plays a constitutive role in Kant’s own account of theodicy. (shrink)

The article is devoted to philosophical anthropology in the works of Russian religious thinkers of the 20 th century during their period of emigration. The author conducts a comparative analysis of the main approaches to understanding human nature and its image in the philosophy of Russia abroad. The article identifies a common direction in the development of anthropological concepts, despite individual differences in the views of Russian religious philosophers. The review and analysis begin with the personalism of N.A. Berdyaev, who (...) considered the problem of man to be central to philosophy. In his work The Fate of Man in the Modern World, Berdyaev offered a personal understanding of the new epoch of the 20 th century and proposed his own project of Christian anthropology. His intellectual ally, B.P. Vysheslavtsev, in the book The Ethics of Transfigured Eros, developed an interpretation of anthropological ideas based on an original understanding of the conscious and unconscious in man. Vysheslavtsev extended his ethical framework by introducing the concept of self-knowledge, which he considers the essence of a creative personality. The article further examines the book Reality and Man by S.L. Frank, which provides a comprehensive view of this philosopher’s anthropological beliefs. The foundation for Frank’s anthropology is the idea of personal being, which has been substantiated and developed in Christian thought. L.P. Karsavin developed anthropology from the perspective of the philosophy of all-unity, understanding individual personality as dependent on higher (“symphonic”) personalities. He fully incorporated the doctrine of personality into the metaphysics of all-unity, in which the Trinity serves as the main principle in the development of the entire created world. The last section of the article delves into an analysis of anthropological ideas as presented in the works of V.V. Zenkovsky. In his work Principles of Orthodox Anthropology, Zenkovsky built his argument on the image of God found in human consciousness and justified an anthropological ideal grounded in church doctrine and Orthodox theology. According to the author of the article, all the considered thinkers of Russia abroad recognized the significance of philosophical anthropology and the need for its further substantiation in the context of the Christian worldview. (shrink)