RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기
    KCI등재

    헤겔의 계몽의 변증법과 종교의 세속화 -하버마스에 대한 비판적 논의- = Hegel`s dialectic of enlightenment and secularization of religion A critical answer to Habermas

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A101965103

    • 0

      상세조회
    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
    • 오류접수

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    Habermas takes the enlightenment and secular religion as historically mutually antagonistic or exclusive. At the same time, Habermas claims that enlightenment and religion, knowledge and belief have common ethical content. How could the conflict occur between the two, if they have common content? In addition to this, how could they, which are historically mutually exclusive, be reconciled by “reflective leap” in modern society? For Hegel, belief and Knowledge have the same genealogical source, insofar as they are “flight from the actual world.” They have the same content insofar as they take the opposition of the actual world as it’s truth. But they are different only formally; belief expresses the truth in representative form, knowledge in conceptional. The formal differences between them allow them to criticize mutually and trigger dialectic of enlightenment and secularization of religion. Knowledge and faith, enlightenment and religion are only the two sides of the same coin, which can be taken as the process of self-understanding of the one and same spirit. We can get the possible foundation of “reflective leap”, Habermas highlights, from Hegel’s theory of the relationship between enlightenment and secularization.
    번역하기

    Habermas takes the enlightenment and secular religion as historically mutually antagonistic or exclusive. At the same time, Habermas claims that enlightenment and religion, knowledge and belief have common ethical content. How could the conflict occur...

    Habermas takes the enlightenment and secular religion as historically mutually antagonistic or exclusive. At the same time, Habermas claims that enlightenment and religion, knowledge and belief have common ethical content. How could the conflict occur between the two, if they have common content? In addition to this, how could they, which are historically mutually exclusive, be reconciled by “reflective leap” in modern society? For Hegel, belief and Knowledge have the same genealogical source, insofar as they are “flight from the actual world.” They have the same content insofar as they take the opposition of the actual world as it’s truth. But they are different only formally; belief expresses the truth in representative form, knowledge in conceptional. The formal differences between them allow them to criticize mutually and trigger dialectic of enlightenment and secularization of religion. Knowledge and faith, enlightenment and religion are only the two sides of the same coin, which can be taken as the process of self-understanding of the one and same spirit. We can get the possible foundation of “reflective leap”, Habermas highlights, from Hegel’s theory of the relationship between enlightenment and secularization.

    더보기

    참고문헌 (Reference)

    1 존 롤즈, "정의론" ㈜이학사 2003

    2 최신한, "세속화의 변증법" 한국동서철학회 (31) : 123-140, 2004

    3 Habermas, J., "Zwischen Naturalismus und Religion" Frankfurt am Main 2005

    4 Grießer, W., "Wissen und Bildung. Zur Aktualität von Hegels Phänomenologie des Geistes anlässlich ihres 200jährigen Jubiläums" Frankfurt am Main 15-38, 2007

    5 Nagl-Docekal, H., "Viele Religionen-eine Vernunft?" Berlin 154-175, 2008

    6 Rawls, J., "Politischer Liberalismus" Frankfurt am Main 1998

    7 Hegel, G. W. F., "Phänomenologie des Geistes, Gesammelte Werke 9" 1980

    8 Habermas, J., "Nachmetaphysisches Denken II" Berlin 2012

    9 Habermas, J., "Kleine politische Schriften (I-IV)" Frankfurt am Main 444-465, 1981

    10 Lewis, Th. A., "Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit. A critical Guide" Cambridge University Press 192-209, 2008

    1 존 롤즈, "정의론" ㈜이학사 2003

    2 최신한, "세속화의 변증법" 한국동서철학회 (31) : 123-140, 2004

    3 Habermas, J., "Zwischen Naturalismus und Religion" Frankfurt am Main 2005

    4 Grießer, W., "Wissen und Bildung. Zur Aktualität von Hegels Phänomenologie des Geistes anlässlich ihres 200jährigen Jubiläums" Frankfurt am Main 15-38, 2007

    5 Nagl-Docekal, H., "Viele Religionen-eine Vernunft?" Berlin 154-175, 2008

    6 Rawls, J., "Politischer Liberalismus" Frankfurt am Main 1998

    7 Hegel, G. W. F., "Phänomenologie des Geistes, Gesammelte Werke 9" 1980

    8 Habermas, J., "Nachmetaphysisches Denken II" Berlin 2012

    9 Habermas, J., "Kleine politische Schriften (I-IV)" Frankfurt am Main 444-465, 1981

    10 Lewis, Th. A., "Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit. A critical Guide" Cambridge University Press 192-209, 2008

    11 Moyar, D., "Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit. A critical Guide" Cambridge University Press 150-172, 2008

    12 Jaeschke, W., "Hegels »Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften« (1830) Ein Kommentar zum Systemgrundriß" Frankfurt am Main 375-465, 2000

    13 Müller, E., "Hegels >Phanomenologie des Geistes< heute" Berlin 175-193, 2004

    14 Lauer, Q., "Hegel and the Philosophy of Religion" The Hague 261-278, 1970

    15 Habermas, J., "Glauben und Wissen" Frankfurt am Main 2001

    16 Fabio, U. D., "Gewissen, Glaube, Religion" 2008

    17 Siep, L., "Der Weg der Phänomenologie des Geistes" Frankfurt am Main 2000

    더보기

    동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

    동일학술지 더보기

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

    학술지 이력

    학술지 이력
    연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
    2026 평가 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
    2020-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) KCI등재
    2017-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (계속평가) KCI등재
    2013-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2010-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2008-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2005-01-01 등재 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
    2004-01-01 등재 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
    2003-01-01 등재 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
    더보기

    학술지 인용정보

    학술지 인용정보
    기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
    2016 0.34 0.34 0.36
    KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
    0.33 0.33 0.736 0.15
    더보기

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼