Suchergebnisse

Inspiriran radom Erica Santnera (1996, 2011) o političkoj teologiji i kraljeva dva tijela, u ovom radu propitujem političku teologiju filma, tj. kako drugo tijelo kralja, tijelo njegove moći, migrira u novo tijelo, tijelo naroda, te sablasno, u raznim tragovima, prati filmski način proizvodnje koji je obilježio dvadeseto stoljeće. U radu dovodim u imaginarnu vezu dva lika (jedan stvarni, drugi fiktivni) koji na određeni način utjelovljuju to migriranje: (1) sudca Daniela Paula Schrebera (čiji je autobiografski zapis mentalne bolesti, od trenutka kada je objavljen 1903., okupirao pažnju ne samo psihijatara i psihoanalitičara nego i raznih teoretičara), i (2) doktora Caligarija, hipnotizera u filmu Kabinet doktora Caligarija (red. Robert Wiene, 1920.), jednog od najpoznatijih junaka njemačkog ekspresionističkog filma, kako bih analizirao kako njihovi slučajevi utjelovljuju »sublimno rojalističko meso« u nacionalnim fantazmagorijama dvadesetoga stoljeća (koje se sve više vraćaju i u naše vrijeme u doba rastućeg populizma i brojnih teorija zavjere). ; Inspired by the work of Eric Santner (1996, 2011) on political theology and the king's two bodies, in this paper, I question the political theology of film. I analyze how the carnal dimension of sovereignty (or king's second body, the body of his power), migrates into a new body, the body of the people, and in various traces appears in the filmic mode of production that marked the twentieth century. I analyse or instead bring into imaginary connection two characters (one real, the other fictional) who in a way embody this migration: (1) Judge Daniel Paul Schreber (whose autobiographical record of mental illness, from the moment it was published (in 1903), occupied the attention not only of psychiatrists and psychoanalysts but also of various theorists) and (2) Dr. Caligari, a hypnotist in the film The Office of Dr. Caligari (dir. Robert Wiene, 1920), one of the most famous characters of German expressionist film.

Papinske poruke mira već imaju svoju polustoljetnu tradiciju. Sve ovore o ugrozi mira među ljudima i narodima, njihovim vanjskim i duhovnim uzrocima, sve predlažu neka rješenja, svaka poziva na poštivanje temeljnih ljudskih prava, na nenasilni put rješavanja svih konflikata, na pravednije društvene odnose i sl. Za razliku od mnogih sličnih svjetskih poruka i poziva, konvencija i dogovora, njihova posebnost leži u teološko-antropološkom pristupu. Autor na primjeru 23 od 51 papinske poruke od 1996. godine istražuje transcendentnu i antropološku gramatiku mira i kulturu dijaloga koje pape u svojim porukama mira neumorno ističu, a svijet stalno zaobilazi. Papinske poruke ukazuju da je transcendentni mir temelj i polazište antropološkom miru. Mir je kao realna mogućnost Božji dar čovjeku, kojemu globalno tržište donosi više nemira, negoli mira, pa je čovjek neprestano pozvan raditi oko mira. Bog je transcendentni izvor mira, a čovjek je antropološko srce mira. Da bi se izgradilo istinsko drvo mira u svijetu, valja nužno mijenjati sliku o čovjeku i sliku o Bogu. Pape stalno upozoravaju da se mir kao opće dobro čovječanstva ne može ostvariti samo pozitivnim zakonima i kojekakvim konvencijama. Stoga zaključuju da moralni i teološki aspekti trebaju prožeti i oploditi one pravne norme i forme, da ljubav treba prožeti istinu i pravdu, a da pravda u pravednosti treba biti povezana ljubavlju. Tako oni grade most između transcendentne i antropološke razine, između mira i ljudskih prava, između ljudskih prava i pravednosti, između pravednosti i praštanja, između praštanja i pomirenja, između pomirenja i mira. Put dijaloga preko praštanja i pomirenja put je do pravoga mira koji se temelji na istini, pravednosti, ljubavi i slobodi. Dakle, kulturu rata i nasilja treba zamijeniti kulturom mira, a ostvarivati kulturom dijaloga i dijalogom kultura i religija. ; Papal messages of peace have already had a half-century tradition. Everybody speaks of threat to peace among people and nations, their external and spiritual causes; everybody proposes some solutions, calls for respecting the basic human rights, for a non-violent way of solving all the conflicts, for just human relationships, and the like. Unlike many similar world messages and calls, conventions and agreements, the specifics of papal messages lie in their theological-anthropological approach. Using the example of 23 of the 51 papal messages from the year 1996, the author investigates the transcendental and anthropological grammar of peace and culture of dialogue that popes tirelessly point out in their messages of peace, but the world constantly avoids them. Papal messages indicate that transcendental peace is the foundation and starting point for anthropological peace. Peace is, as a real possibility, God's gift to man. The global market brings a man more restlessness than peace, and that is why man is called to constantly strive for peace. God is the transcendent source of peace and man is the anthropological heart of peace. To build a genuine tree of peace in the world, it is necessary to change the image of man and the image of God. Popes constantly keep warning that peace as the common good of mankind cannot be achieved only through positive laws and all sorts of conventions. Therefore, they conclude that moral and theological aspects need to pervade and impregnate legal norms and forms, love must permeate truth and justice and justice in righteousness should be related to love. Thus, they build a bridge between the transcendent and anthropological level, between peace and human rights, between human rights and justice, between justice and forgiveness, between forgiveness and reconciliation, between reconciliation and peace. The path of dialogue, through forgiveness and reconciliation, is the path to true peace based on truth, justice, love and freedom. Thus, the culture of war and violence needs to be replaced by a culture of peace, which should be achieved through a culture of dialogue and through a dialogue between cultures and religions.

The critical function of the Church & theology throws some light on the general nature & place of criticism in human relations, & particularly on the role of opposition in politics. From the standpoint of the Church & theology the role of opposition is not untoward in itself, it is a positive component of political life in democracy. The article lists a number of major civilizational problems that require the useful & necessary criticism by the Church & theology. It is also the opposition's duty to use their political clout to make key political protagonists pay due attention to the Church & theology & in this way enable them to fulfill their positive social role. The opposition's activities should be founded on truth, justice, & the exclusion of hatred & even love (utopia?). Adapted from the source document.

This article presents a discussion of the essence of moral, political theology, one which is specifically related to the political life and the public attitude with which Croatia would like to enter the European Union and make itself more present in the world. It is a theology which strives to actively contribute to the process of the humanisation of society. Theology, as an attitude of critical reasoning, plays a fundamental role in the process of the liberation of man and the strengthening of the Christian community by helping to liberate them from all types of fetishes and idolatry. At the same time, it helps avoid the kind of fatal narcissism which impoverishes human relationships. Understood in this way, every kind of theology, and especially political theology, has a permanent and necessary role to play in the process of liberation from all forms of religious alienation. This alienation is generally something which the ecclesiastical institutions themselves produce when they obstruct or hinder the Word of God being approached in an authentic way. Adapted from the source document.

The author designates the Croatian thinker Juraj Krizanic as a philosopher of politics, i.e. a modern political theorist who, on the one hand, founds his postulates on traditional theological thought, and, on the other, takes into account the postulates of modern political theory. As a theologian, Krizanic bases his conception of history and theology on the providentialism of St. Aurelius Augustine, and his political theory on the acceptance of a part of the thought of his contemporary Thomas Hobbes. The theoretical position -- political theology, positions him precisely between the political-theological postulates of Augustine and the political-theoretical hypotheses of Hobbes. In agreement with Augustine, Kriznic concludes that the political community (state) has its foundation in God and the values comprised in him, which is especially manifest in Providence and royal worship as basis of the internal structure of the state. But, in agreement with Hobbes, Krizanic understands that the mission of the state decreed by Providence operates within the earthly state and the secular political frameworks, and that, on the other hand, the king instituted by the will of God has his foundation also in the political body (the people), and this ranks Krizanic among the modern political theorists. Adapted from the source document.

As opposed to philosophy, theology and natural sciences, for which only the singular Man exists, for political theory the decisive fact is the plurality of men. Politics is preoccupied with common and mutual being of different men. It is created among men and established as their connectedness. Freedom exists only in the authentic interspace of politics. We are saved from that freedom in the "necessity of history", which is a revolting absurdity. When one wishes in our time to speak about politics, one must start with the prejudice towards it. The prejudice accurately reflect the truly existing contemporary situation precisely in its political aspects, and suggest that we have ended up in a situation in which we do not quite or do not yet know how to move politically. The prejudice towards politics are manifest in the notion that national politics is made up of lies and deception by corrupt interests and corrupt ideology, while foreign politics hovers between hollow propaganda and brute force. This causes a flight into powerlessness, a desperate desire for men in general to be deprived of the freedom to act. Politics is, always and everywhere, preoccupied with illuminating and dissolving prejudice. If one wishes to dissolve prejudice, one must first discover the past judgment contained therein, i.e. actually show their contents of truth. This is the task of the faculty of judgment, but not as mere capability to subject the individual regularly and adequately to the general that corresponds to it and regarding which there is agreement, but as judgment directly and with no standard. The loss of standard, which truly determines the modern world in its facticity and cannot be annulled by any return to the good, old tradition or any arbitrary setting up of new values and standards, is therefore a catastrophe of the moral world only if one presupposes that men would in fact be completely unable to judge things in and of themselves, and that their faculty of judgment is insufficient for original judgment. Politics is always centered on care for the world organized in this or some different way, without which those who care and who are political, think that life is not worth living. Where men come together, the world always breaks through between them, and all human actions take place in this interspace. Adapted from the source document.

The author analyzes the attitude of the lawyer Carl Schmitt toward the philosopher Hegel. He considers the way in which Schmitt relates to Hegel & believes his references to Hegel are not justified. Namely, Schmitt was not Hegelian. The author proves his theory with an analysis of the stance of each philosopher toward liberalism, political theology, the friend-enemy theory, & each one's style of reasoning. Adapted from the source document.

The term charisma was first used in theological writings. In the Old Testament literature, the term occurs only twice. However, in the New Testament it occurs seventeen times. It is used by St. Paul in the First Letter to the Corinthians, in the Letter to the Romans, in the Second Letter to the Corinthians. In the political context, the word charisma has been lavishly used in the analyses of national-socialist & Stalinist regimes. Charismatic legitimation is, primarily, a feature of various types of dictatorships & not of democratic, constitutional states. This is probably why charismatic aspects are so notorious in most contemporary social theory. 18 References. Adapted from the source document.

U ovome radu želimo ukazati na korijene Moltmannove »nove političke teologije« koje je izgradio uz J. B. Metza krajem 1960-ih i početkom 1970-ih godina s posebnim naglaskom na značenje križa u političkom i društvenom angažmanu kršćanskih vjerskih zajednica i vjernika. Moltmannova koncepcija »nove političke teologije« u velikoj se mjeri oslanja na poimanje smrti Boga koje crpi kako iz povijesti Isusa iz Nazareta, tako i iz Hegelova razumijevanja spekulativnog Velikog petka. Postavljajući veliki naglasak na smrt Boga, Moltmann je u mogućnosti križ postaviti kao radikalnu kritiku bilo kakvih obogotvorenja kolektivnih identiteta koje nameće društvo, politika i religija, pri čemu revolucionarnost križa vidi u neprestanoj kritici tih identiteta. ; In this paper, we want to point to the roots of Moltmann's "new political theology" which he initiated along with J. B. Metz at the end of the 1960s and the beginning of 1970s, with special emphasis on the meaning of the cross in the political and societal engagement of Christian communities and believers. Moltmann's conception of "new political theology" is mainly relying on his conception of the death of God which he draws from the history of Jesus of Nazareth, but from Hegel's understanding of the speculative Good Friday as well. Mainly emphasising the death of God, Moltmann was able to posit the cross as a radical critique of the divinization of collective identities that the society, politics and religion push forward. Along those lines, he sees the revolutionary potential of the cross in the critique of these identities.

This paper discusses the medieval theological and political history, and the difference between blue and red blood. The popular phrase blue blood had a special significance during the Middle Ages, and its echo has been present in our culture ever since. One might think that such an abstract concept is only an insignificant legend that emerged from the oral folk tradition without any roots in theory and literature. The author's intention is to present the concept of blue and red blood as a part of fictional genre theory. The fictional genre discourse becomes especially evident when the king's simultaneously natural and supernatural bodies, or more simply, the notion that the king possesses a superbody, are discussed. In the given period the concept of blue blood, which referred to the king's dignity, was coined. Thomas Hobbes, in his famous work Leviathan, develops the social contract theory, which is used to explain the development of the modern political community. Blue blood becomes red when an ordinary citizen becomes involved in politics, as this paper confirms. ; Ovaj rad tematizira srednjovjekovnu teološku i političku povijest, kao i razliku između plave i crvene krvi. Poznati izraz plava krv bio je posebno važan u srednjemu vijeku, a njegov odjek prisutan je u kulturi sve do danas. Mogli bismo pomisliti da je tako apstraktan koncept tek beznačajna legenda, proizašla iz usmene predaje bez ikakvih začetaka u teoriji i književnosti. Namjera je autora predstaviti koncept plave i crvene krvi kao dio teorije fikcijskoga žanra. Diskurs fikcijskoga žanra postaje vidljiv u razmatranju kraljeva istovremenog posjedovanja prirodna i natprirodna tijela, odnosno ideje da kralj posjeduje supertijelo. U danome razdoblju stvoren je koncept plave krvi koji se odnosio na kraljevo dostojanstvo. Thomas Hobbes u svojemu slavnom djelu Levijatan razvija teoriju društvenoga ugovora kojom objašnjava razvoj moderne političke zajednice. Kao što prikazuje ovaj rad, plava krv postaje crvena kada običan građanin postane aktivan ...

Enciklika pape Franje Laudato sì, objavljena 2015. godine, orijentir je suvremenoga doktrinarnog učenja o stvaranju. U radu se sažimlju osnovni pojmovi teksta u sedam koraka. Polazište je pregled hitnih izazova koji kršćanska teologija o stvaranju lica doživljava u osvit 21. stoljeća. U tom kontekstu, drugi korak opisuje teološki i pastoralni cilj enciklike. Stoga sljedeći korak razjašnjava odnos između suvremenih "znakova vremena" i doktrinarnog učenja u enciklici. Četvrti korak opisuje Papin koncept sveobuhvatnog pristupa izazovima u gospodarstvu, politici i okolišu. U tom smislu, peti korak skicira Papinu kritiku tzv. "tehnokratske paradigme". Dok šesti korak opisuje njegovu koncepciju temeljne veze i univerzalne solidarnosti svih stvorenja, posljednji korak razotkriva pojam Božje "nježnosti", koja je ključna za Papino teološko rasuđivanje o stvaranju i njegovoj duhovnosti. ; Pope Francis' encyclical "Laudato sì", published in 2015, is a landmark of contemporary doctrinal teaching on creation. The paper summarizes the basic concepts of the text in seven steps. The starting point is an outline of urgent challenges Christian theology on creation faces at the dawn of 21st century. Against this background, the second step expounds the theological and pastoral objective of the encyclical. Hence, the next step elucidates the relationship between contemporary "signs of the times" and doctrinal teaching in the encyclical. The fourth step outlines the Pope's concept of a comprehensive approach to the outstanding challenges in economy, politics and environment. On this line, the fifth step sketches the Pope's criticism of the so-called "technocratic paradigm". While the sixth step expounds his conception of the fundamental link and universal solidarity of all creatures, the final step exposes the notion of God's "tenderness" which is crucial for the Pope's theological reasoning on creation and his spirituality.

According to Luhmann, religion transforms the indefinable/un-defined into the definable/defined complexity, thus outlining the problems of the whole society. Due to this function, religion remains bound to the level of the entirety of a social system. Nevertheless, in time, in the course of the functional differentiation of society, different sub-systems have been created for different tasks (economy, science, politics, education, etc) & religion has been accorded the status of one such system. Besides distinguishing among various subsystems, this process implies the separation of diverse task-areas within the religious system itself. By & by, within the Christian religion, three functionally differentiated spheres have emerged which Luhmann labels as a) the church, ie, the entirety of spiritual communication in which the function of the system of religion is fulfilled for the whole social system; b) Diaconate (Diakonie), which performs the system's tasks towards other social sub-systems (these tasks, in line with the theory of systems, may be termed services Leistungen) as well as towards personal systems (in line with the theory of systems they may be termed pastoral -- Seelsorge); & c) theology (Theologie) whose role within the religious system may be described as reflexion (Reflexion) ie, the task of the reflexive contact of one's own identity. 1 Table, 10 References. Adapted from the source document.

It is with good reason that decisionism stresses the crucial importance of decisions in the political process. But it is necessary to evaluate critically its dramatic pretension (from Schmitt to Agamben), according to which the normality of life is juxtaposed with the pathos of the state of exception & crisis. This erases not only every distinction between normality & the state of exception, but even between democracy & dictatorship. The proper framework from which an explanation of decisionism & its dramatizing forms can be derived is the modern age as a whole. The birth of decisionism from the crisis of tradition & commonality can be observed already in the beginning of modernity: with Machiavelli & Hobbes. We find the peak of dramatisation in Schmitt's decisionism, in the use of political theology for the dramatization of politics as drama of the subject which obtains his self-willed freedom through a secularist disempowerment of God. The other strand of political philosophy advocates the political priority of discussion & discourse, as opposed to the priority of decision. The author is interested in forms of discourse which revolve in a Habermasian or Rawlsian way around the concept of deliberative democracy. The theories of deliberative democracy are mostly characterized by the following postulates: demand for equality & inclusion, for non-coercion & communicativeness, oriented towards mutual understanding. The author points out that these demands reflect too great expectations, which cannot be fulfilled by discourse & discussion (expectations of consensus & rationality, underestimating of pre-discursive assumptions). In the final section, the author concludes that both decisionism & theory of discourse resulted from the modern-age loss of tradition & commonality. Decision & discussion could be perceived as feuding brothers, although they are doing their best to negate their kinship. A mediation of opposition is possible insofar as the feuding brothers recognize the fact that they are related. Unification at least protects them from the danger of irrationalism & excessive expectation of rationalism. Adapted from the source document.