3.8 Article

Hans Jonas's reflections on the human soul and the notion of imago Dei: an explanation of their role in ethics and some possible historical influences on their development

期刊

HISTORY OF EUROPEAN IDEAS
卷 49, 期 5, 页码 870-884

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/01916599.2022.2164600

关键词

Hans Jonas; imago Dei; human soul; myth; human responsibility

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Throughout his career, Hans Jonas has reflected on the notion of the human soul and on the concept of man being created in God's image. From 1968, he changed his perspective on these topics, emphasizing the importance of the Judeo-Christian notion of imago Dei for his ethical project. He used this concept to show the special role assigned to humanity as a steward of God's creation.
Throughout his career, Hans Jonas has reflected on the notion of the human soul and on the concept of man being created in God's image. A careful analysis of his writings reveals that (approximately) from 1968 he changed his perspective on these topics. Before this year, Jonas used some Gnostic myths to speak about the image of man in relation to God and was concerned that referring to the immortality of the human soul or to the notion of imago Dei could lead to dualistic or pseudo-Gnostic interpretations of the natural world. From 1968 (when Jonas published an article for an American Jewish journal) he started to underline the importance of the Judeo-Christian notion of imago Dei (from the book of Genesis) for his ethical project. Subsequently, he used this concept (derived from the Bible rather than from Gnostic texts) in support of his ethical approach to show the special role that God assigned to humanity to act as a steward of His creation. This article presents the development of Jonas's contributions on these issues over time, their importance in relation to his ethical project and how he was influenced in the development of his perspective on this subject.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据