Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKincade, Jamesen
dc.date.accessioned2018-05-22T12:43:31Z
dc.date.available2018-05-22T12:43:31Z
dc.date.issued1960en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1842/30356
dc.description.abstracten
dc.description.abstractThis is an age of specialisation. We have specialists to assist our entry into the world, and specialists to ease us into the next. We hesitate to read a book or go to the theatre today without the advice of sane critic in our Sunday newspaper or esoteric journal. In order to be a specialist in one subject there is little time left for the reading required to enable us to converse with a specialist in another field of study. This is, perhaps, one general reason for the present malaise in what used to be called philosophical theology. The achievements of modern science have necessitated a reassessment of certain philosophical positions, and in this activity there has been a neglect, by the philosopher, of the developments in modern theology. And these latter developments in turn have compelled the theologian to remain within the confines of his own special subjecten
dc.description.abstractIt soon became evident that in Karl Barth and Paul Tillich one had two theologians who were potent influences in their own spheres (including the geographical spheres of Europe and America), and who were, in addition, at opposite poles both in their theological conclusions and in their attitudes to philosophy. Christian theology has always lived in conversation with its environmental culture. At different times it had been either in close rapport with that culture, utilizing its terminology and its categories, or in direct opposition to it - ploughing its own furrow in the light of its own special revelation. The former attitude is evident in the theology of Paul Tillich, for he attempts a synthesis between philosophy and theology: the latter can be found In the work of Karl Barth, whose attitude is a subtle diastasis in which he is so involved in his theology that he has no interest in philosophy.en
dc.description.abstractIt soon became evident that in Karl Barth and Paul Tillich one had two theologians who were potent influences in their own spheres (including the geographical spheres of Europe and America), and who were, in addition, at opposite poles both in their theological conclusions and in their attitudes to philosophy. Christian theology has always lived in conversation with its environmental culture. At different times it had been either in close rapport with that culture, utilizing its terminology and its categories, or in direct opposition to it - ploughing its own furrow in the light of its own special revelation. The former attitude is evident in the theology of Paul Tillich, for he attempts a synthesis between philosophy and theology: the latter can be found In the work of Karl Barth, whose attitude is a subtle diastasis in which he is so involved in his theology that he has no interest in philosophy.en
dc.description.abstractInevitably these two Parts reflect the tone of their subject matter, Barth* s final position in the history of theology may not yet be determined positively, but it is clear that his thought has been informed and stimulated by Kantian and post-Kantian German philosophy; thus it is in comparison with this genre of philosophical thinking that his reflections have been set, Tillich draws on Greek culture and Greek philosophy for his seminal ideas, and therefore his thought is developed by comparison with what I take to be the Socratic-Platonic view of philosophy.en
dc.description.abstractBoth of these Parts are destructive and critical; in general it may be said that Barth appears to limit unduly the concept of the experience of God that is possible for man, and his correspondence theozy of theological ethics suffers from the usual defect of all correspondence theories viz, that it is impossible to determine when, and if, correspondence occurs: Tillich extends the concept of man1 s experience of God to cover practically every experience whatever, and his ethical theory is based upon a faulty metaphysic. Out of the criticism certain positive premisses are evolved and these are explicitly stated in the final two Chapters of Part III; in the latter of these an interpretation of Christian ethics is sketched in outline. In order to establish these conclusions more firmly I felt constrained to put forward some criticisms of the state of present day moral philosophy in England. These form the basis for Part III, and here the quotations and references are, in the main, taken from recent philosophical literature. As I am neither an academic philosopher nor a theologian I cannot be accused of grinding any particular axes, but my objectivity in this, as in all other matters, is of degree only. My sympathies are with the theologian, but my critical instruments were fashioned by the philosophers. In attempting to place a foot in both camps, it may be that "the attempt and not the deed confounds us", but I have been left with my original opinion that the camps are closer together than a superficial view of the present gulf between them would suggest.en
dc.publisherThe University of Edinburghen
dc.relation.ispartofAnnexe Thesis Digitisation Project 2018 Block 19en
dc.relation.isreferencedbyAlready catalogueden
dc.titleA critical examination of the views of Karl Barth and Paul Tillich on philosophy and ethicsen
dc.typeThesis or Dissertationen
dc.type.qualificationlevelDoctoralen
dc.type.qualificationnamePhD Doctor of Philosophyen


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record