جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « paul tillich » در نشریات گروه « فلسفه و کلام »

One of the important issues of today's philosophy of religion, which is tied to the knowledge of linguistics, theology, and interpretation, is the issue of "language of religion" or "religious language". In the present era, the western thinkers have usually considered religious language to be non-cognitive and devoid of cognitive load by proposing theories such as iconography, functionalism, allegory, and mythology. Meanwhile, Paul Tillich (1886-1965), a German-American Christian theologian, considers the language of religion to be symbolic. From his point of view, religion is the knowledge of the sublime and the heart's bond with it, and since the sublime is unlimited and unattainable, religious propositions cannot speak of it in ordinary language, and inevitably, the language of religion will be a symbolic language. In this article, after the detailed explanation and analysis of Paul Tillich's symbolic theory, the many challenges of this theory have been discussed; conceptual ambiguity, ambiguity in results, contradiction between theory and its owner's practice, confusion between symbol and symbolic language, confusion between concept and example of divine existence, and especially non-cognizableness of religious propositions are among these challenges. In addition, the differences in terms of background, teachings, challenges, and solutions between the space of "Holy Bible" and "Christian theology" on the one hand and "Qur'an" and "Islamic theology" on the other hand are so deep and fundamental. It is assumed that Tillich's theory is effective in Christian theology, it cannot be effective in the field of Qur'an.

Paul Tillich holds that God is not a being, but "being itself" and "the foundation of being". Given the transcendence of God, he negates the possibility of any sort of speaking of God. He maintains that the attributes and names attributed to God are only symbols do not refer literally to God, but they are only ways to encounter with God. In the Islamic tradition, some mystics like Imam Khomeini has a particular view on the quality of speaking of God which must be reviewed independently. This view is, to some extent, similar to Paul Tillich's view, as it has some distinctions with it. Imam Khomeini holds that the hidden aspect of the essence of God is entirely transcendent, and no one can attribute any property to God in this level. Meanwhile, transcendence of God does not prevent us from speaking of God in another level called the al-Vahediat. In this level, humans can speak of God and attribute names and properties to God. Imam Khomeini believes that his view is a level between two extremes of not- speaking (al-Ta'atil) and anthropomorphism. Thus, he advocates this view according to the principles of theoretical mysticism.

Christian and Muslim theologians have tried to present a defendable explanation of religious teachings and statements in response to the theoretical and religious courses for thousands of years. Comparing the Christian and Islamic traditions in the analysis of religious language and profiting from the correct meaning of Paul Tillich’s symbolic-thinking method and Ibn-Arabi’s ramzgara’i (symbolistic) method, this research intends to play a great role in understanding the reality of religion and religious language. It will also find a suitable answer to the following questions: can each of the two intellectual frameworks be better understood with the help of the other; and comparing the two intellectual frameworks and cognitive systems, can we present another comprehensive and major pattern? Studying the original meaning and concept of symbol, ramz and esoteric interpretation, this research will show the necessity of symbolism and ramzgara’i in language of religion and will clarify the real and original limits and bounds of esoteric interpretation. A good preparation to find Ibn-Arabi’s answer in the mentioned cognitive field, is to have a new organization and formulation of his mysticism and regard its confrontation with the new questions posed by the intellectual theological-philosophical school of Paul Tillich. Researching the implication and the reasons of using symbols and ramz in religious language, we will have a better text-research confrontation with the holy texts and will avoid the formation of its surrounding doubts. The method of such research is to have an equal comparison on the basis of the logical analysis of concepts.

Paul Tillich is known as one of the prominent contemporary theologians. His reflections on reason, revelation, culture, and Christ had a great impact on theological and philosophical thoughts and have opened up new horizons in theological thinking. From his early works in Germany until his later works in the USA, Tillich had a special notion about God and has engaged with its different dimensions. He attempts to analyses the concept of God in accordance with the new conditions of the world, and through this attempt express his critic to the traditional and contemporary theological thesis about God. In this article, we illustrate Tillich’s notion of God and the implications that lead him toward this kind of encountering the subject under discussion here. Among Tillich’s works, there can be found four terms attributed to God and in this article, we will discover the relationship between these terms. It seems that Tillich’s notion of Gods relies on methodological, ontological, and linguistic foundations which will be reviewed at the starting of this article. Eventually, we will mention the impact of Tillich’s notion of God in his other reflections, especially in the realm of culture.

Paul Tillich is one of the most influential Christian philosophers and theologians in the twentieth century. His new theory about speaking of God is known as the theory of symbolism. He shows in this theory that we cannot speak of God literally because religious language is the language of symbols. Tillich established his symbolism theory on his ontological assumptions. According to them, although God as a being-itself and transcendent being is different from any human, but the human participates in existence with God. This assumption requires using of religious symbols in speaking of God. For assert this view, Tillich shows at the first the properties of symbols and then defines the religious symbols. Finally he argues that religious symbols have two features that face us with two different aspects, because with using these symbols we can introduce Gad as being itself and the wholly other on the one hand and we can contact with him personally on the other hand.

Paul Tillich (1965-1886) was a German Christian theologian who sees the symbolic language of religion. That is the realm of religion is full of religious symbols. Religious symbol is an icon who represents the last attachment. On Tillich''s view، all religious statements are symbolic statements، except that «the existence of God». He believes God is existence itself not a being among the others. In this article the author explains his theory and critique it. So he concludes that even there is some symbolic expressions in religious text، especially in the Holy Quran، but that does not mean totally the language of religion، is the symbolic language.