Volume 56, Issue 2

Neuroscience has raised great doubt regarding the idea of autonomy in human decision-making. Many people have come to use pharmaceutical and even medical treatments for enhancing their brain. This article reveals an important feature of the phenomenon of subjectivity in order to answer the ethical question regarding the point at which the subject destroys herself in voluntarily manipulating her brain. The article draws out the difference between experience and the content of an experience. Both features of subjectivity are based on a theological platform which is called the «feeling of utter dependency” (Friedrich Schleiermacher). Subjects are permitted to manipulate themselves with view to the content of their experiences. On the other hand, they destroy themselves when the touch the process of experience and play God.

A liberal theology that values the individual, the person or the subject, is required to defend itself for its ally with individualism and human-centered philosophies, since the concept of the individual or the person has become problematic, as it is radicalized in neoliberalism and sharply criticized by postmodernism. After the First World War Ernst Troeltsch distinguished a German from a Western perspective at the basis of a liberal view of humanity, which he wanted to synthesize in order to secure human dignity and advance the acceptance of universal human rights. Even though our situation has changed profoundly, Troeltsch’s distinction is still very helpful, since both neoliberalism and postmodernism can be described as one-sided radicalizations of what he labeled as ‘German’ and ‘Western’ ways of thought. Analysis shows that both neoliberalism and postmodernism fail to formulate the commonalities of a common human nature due to their radicalization. In contrast to neoliberalism and postmodernism, a liberal theology is challenged to value the individual within the bond of a common human nature and to describe this nature without the restrictions or prescriptions of an essentialist definition of what is human. The concept of a common humanity without essentials is defended with reference to Foucault and Hegel and supported by the classical notion of the image of God. Zusammenfassung Von einer liberalen Theologie, die dem Individuum, der Person oder dem Subjekt Wert beilegt, wird heutzutage wegen ihrer Verbindung mit dem Individualismus und mit anthropozentrischen Philosophien Rechenschaft gefordert, weil das Konzept des Individuums oder der Person im Neoliberalismus eine Radikalisierung erfährt und durch den Postmodernismus scharf kritisiert wird. Nach dem ersten Weltkrieg unterschied Ernst Troeltsch die deutsche Perspektive zur Begründung einer liberalen Sicht des Menschen von einer westlichen, die er zur Sicherstellung der Menschenwürde und zur Annahme der universellen Menschenrechte in einer kulturellen Synthese zusammenbringen wollte. Die Unterscheidung von Troeltsch ist trotz tief greifender Veränderung der heutigen Situation immer noch aufschlussreich, weil Neoliberalismus und Postmodernismus sich beide als einseitige Radikalisierungen der von ihm als »deutsch« und »westlich« angedeuteten Denkarten darstellen lassen. Aus einer Analyse geht hervor, dass sowohl dem Neoliberalismus wie dem Postmodernismus aufgrund ihrer Radikalität die Bestimmung des Gemeinsamen einer geteilten menschlichen Natur misslingt. Eine liberale Theologie wird im Widerspruch zu Neoliberalismus und Postmodernismus zu einer Anerkennung des Individuums herausgefordert, die dem Individuum eine allgemeine und geteilte menschliche Natur zuweist, diese aber nicht durch eine essentialistische Definition des Menschlichen einschränkt oder bestimmt. Das Konzept einer allgemeinen Menschlichkeit ohne Wesensmerkmale lässt sich unter Hinweis auf Foucault und Hegel verteidigen und mit der klassischen Auffassung vom Bild Gottes beleuchten.

Following Hegel, Axel Honneth assigns the crucial role for the realization of justice in the sense of enabling individual autonomy to recognition in the interaction of different social spheres. The theory of recognition stands in close connection to a biblical, Reformation understanding of reconciliation, justification and righteousness. This becomes particularly clear with Hegel, the essential founder of the concept of recognition. Having been challenged by the situation of pluralism, the theory of recognition has gained new attention. This is evident in the field of law and civil society in the increasing awareness of the right of inclusion and participation and for cultural and religious minority rights. It is also evident in that the function of cultural and religious communities, and the importance of civil society for the realization of justice are newly recognized. The perspective of recognition thus changes the discourse on justice. This becomes more pluralistic, more open and also more open for religious contributions; it orients itself stronger on the life-world. The theory of recognition also provides for reconsideration in that it brings back into view the specific and fundamental meaning of communication and experience of divine recognition for self-esteem and autonomy and thus for justice.

Eleonore Stump’s intensive work on theodicy culminates in her opus magnum Wandering in Darkness . Her explicit thesis with regard to the evidential problem of evil is: From the background of a Christian worldview even terrible sufferings can be conceived as a necessary and indispensable part of a healing process through which God guides human beings from their postlapsarian sinful state towards their ultimate end, communion with God and fellow human beings. Stump pursues this aim by the use of biblical narratives as a way of sharing interpersonal experiences between God and men. In this article I present the main steps of Stump’s argument. Then I discuss whether she is successful in her attempt to treat human suffering and the loss of one’s deepest desires as appropriately as she claims. Finally I outline the explanatory limits of this, and most probably, every theodicy by means of the concept of a worldview.

Huldrych Zwingli understands God as “the highest good” ( summum bonum ). His philosophically developed concept of God merged together with the biblical God. The connection is closely related to Zwingli’s fundamental conviction regarding God’s simplicity. These characteristics of his concept of God can be developed to preserve the divinity of God on the basis of the principle of the unconditional observance of the difference between God and man.

The first part of the inquiry shows that the term “person” cannot be identified with the term “man.” At the same time, all other attempts to comprehend and define the term “man” more exactly do not lead to a more adequate understanding of “person” either. Following the development of the “person” concept in Latin, “person” characterizes the status or rank of an agent. “Person” is a title which can be bestowed more or less at will. Therefore it is evident that in the drama of the life of every Christian the heavenly Father, the only Son and the Holy Spirit act as persons. By tres personae, una persona even the Trinity as such can be understood as one person.