English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 1309/3723 (35%)
Visitors : 2235652      Online Users : 32
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://ir.taitheo.org.tw:8080/ir/handle/987654321/6238


    Title: 始於盼望的責任倫理學: 論莫特曼的盼望倫理學
    Responsibility Ethics of Hope: On Jürgen Moltmann’s Ethics of Hope.
    Authors: 郭義宏
    Quek, Ngee Hong
    Contributors: 台灣神學院
    Keywords: 莫特曼、事前責任、盼望倫理學、責任倫理學、盼望危機
    Jürgen Moltmann, ex ante responsibility, ethics of hope, responsibility ethics, crisis of hope
    Date: 2016-05-16
    Issue Date: 2017-01-12T06:33:37Z (UTC)
    Abstract: 本論文探究盼望、責任與倫理在莫特曼著作的關係。論文首先總攬了在《盼望倫理學》之前對莫特曼倫理學的解讀,並指出學者解讀莫特曼倫理學為政治神學,或者是似乎難以能夠有效建構的倫理,就是說建構莫特曼的倫理似乎是不可能的任務。然而,這些解讀都沒有解釋在莫特曼的著作中越加重要的責任論述,特別是當莫特曼倫理學在回應上帝為何和其作為並因應其責任擔負所關切的對象上,如他關切大自然、人類本身和科技文明的危機。本文也追溯並論述《盼望倫理學》所提到的莫特曼倫理學的轉變,就是探究為何解放實踐為主的道德實踐已經不再是他倫理學的唯一關注。
    本論文的基本論述為:莫特曼所闡述的盼望倫理學是始於盼望的責任倫理。換句話說,本研究指出莫特曼所闡述的盼望倫理學是具有始於盼望的責任倫理學特征的倫理學。在莫特曼的倫理學為盼望倫理學的認知下,為何要倡議盼望和責任兩個概念來理解莫特曼的倫理學?這兩個概念難道就沒有衝突,真的是必然相容嗎?而且為何不以盼望倫理學的責任概念來理解在莫特曼的著作中的盼望、責任與倫理之間的關係?到底何謂始於盼望的責任倫理學解讀的優越性?以上都是本文釐清和論證的問題。
    在釐清何謂二十世紀的基督教責任倫理的特征之後,本文從「神學三部曲」、「彌賽亞神學」以及「二十一世紀」三個時期來總攬了莫特曼著作的責任論述,並爬梳《盼望倫理學》的責任論述,以及理解何時莫特曼的倫理學才展現出始於盼望的責任倫理的特征。同時,說責任論述是始於盼望的,這意味著對莫特曼責任論述的理解須要置於神學氛圍下和終末時空下來解讀。解讀層面包括如三一論、上帝之國、彌賽亞基督論、聖靈論、時間、空間和終末的架構。
    最後,以始於盼望的責任倫理學來解讀莫特曼的倫理學,本文探索此解讀的優越性, 並對二十世紀的基督教責任倫理學有所貢獻。而莫特曼盼望倫理學的責任是可以因應盼望危機(crisis of hope)的問題,就是當危機論述不再具有任何盼望的時候,莫特曼的倫理學可以因應此危機的問題。
    The present work is a study of the relationships between hope, responsibility, and ethics in Jürgen Moltmann’s major works. Before the publication of his Ethics of Hope, scholarly consensus either understood Moltmann’s ethics as a political theology that provides a framework for ethics, or there actually is no adequate explanatory framework for Moltmann’s ethics. Yet these earlier studies all fail to account for the significant emphasis Moltmann places on the discourse of responsibility within his major works, especially as he explores the ideas and works of God in the midst of crises in ecology, humanity, and the scientific-technological era. In Ethics of Hope, Moltmann signals a possible change in his ethical theory, which the present study argues must consist of more factors than liberation praxis alone.
    This thesis seeks to read Jürgen Moltmann’s Ethics of Hope as responsibility ethics that is out of hope (deriving from hope), which is to say that Moltmann’s ethics exhibit the characteristics of responsibility ethics. Why is there a need to use both the concepts of hope and of responsibility to account for Moltmann’s ethics of hope? Are the concepts of hope and of responsibility compatible? Why not just use the concept of responsibility within his ethics of hope to explain the relationship between hope, responsibility, and ethics in Moltmann’s major works? These questions are addressed in this study.
    After clarifying what the characteristics of responsibility ethics are in Christian theology, this work surveys Moltmann’s discourses on responsibility in his major works in three successive periods: that of “Trilogy,” “Messianic Theology,” and “21st Century.” A survey of his discourse of responsibility in Ethics of Hope is explored separately. The results of this survey suggest that Moltmann’s Ethics of Hope indeed displays the characteristics of responsibility ethics deriving from hope. This thesis also explains that the discourse of responsibility deriving from hope in Moltmann’s ethics must be understood within his comprehensive theological framework, which includes trinitarian faith, the kingdom of God, messianic Christology, pneumatology, time, space, and the framework of eschatology.
    Having understood Moltmann’s ethics as responsibility ethics deriving from hope, the study closes by explaining the advantages of such a reading by briefly exploring the contributions that may be made to responsibility ethics in Christian theology, and by explaining how the ethics of Moltmann may cope with problems generated by a crisis of hope.
    Appears in Collections:[台灣神學院] 研究部-神學博士班(Ph.D.)
    [13.研究部-神學博士(Ph.D.)] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    Ph.D 2016-2.pdf18019KbAdobe PDF1546View/Open


    All items in TAITHEO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    請尊重著作權法

    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback