جستجوي پيشرفته | کتابخانه مجازی الفبا

The theoretical basis for the new philosophy was laid by the American philosopher James Joseph Dagenais (1923-1981), who came to the conclusion that philosophical anthropology is not a science, but a domain unto itself, and that a philosophy of man can only come about as a joint undertaking of all sciences, in which the object of study must be man himself. The final explanation of man lies outside all possible scientific views that have ever been formulated, because they lie within the origins of every branch of science, including the science of philosophy. It is the final ground on which the philosophies, of any nature whatsoever, can be practised implicitly or explicitly. The methods of a post-modern philosophical anthropology will have to be based on reflection, on the claim that it is possible to debate differences and contrasts on reasonable grounds, and on the individual responsibility for the decisions we all make for ourselves in respect of changes in body and mind. A post-modern version of Sartre’s creed: man is and always will be what he makes of himself. I have given philosophical anthropology a new concrete substance on the basis of the definition of Jim Dagenais: “a consistent overall vision of man and his world”, so that it can serve as the basis for philosophy and thus as the foundation for human life.

The philosophical investigations into universals was entangled with the combination of a certain Christian faith and Ontology, especially in ancient and medieval times. That is, God’s creative activity provided us with the ontological presumption which enabled universals to be predicated, be perceived and be thought about. Times then have changed, and “the modern turn” in Philosophy tends to resolve universals into concepts or linguistic phenomenon, which resulted that its certain Christian ontology no longer dominates the discourse on universals. On the contrary to this philosophical tendency, modern theological discussions try to learn the development of philosophical investigations into universals, and to tackle the theological problems provoked by the modern natural science. Especially Karl Barth’s use of Universals-theory would obtain the assessment of “revolution in content” in the Church history, which, in previous studies, was yet entangled with the ambiguous word “…in motion…” and with the unclear argument “…understand true human nature from the nature of this one particular man Jesus Christ…” The present article will attempt to clarify this Barth’s practical use of Universals-theory by referring to philosophical arguments, then proving Barth’s intention and the difficulty of his complicated argument that Jesus Christ was one exemplar and in the same time was also the model, which is inconsistent with the basis of Universals-theory. It resulted that this Barth’s attempt will provide us with the possibility today of Universals-theory especially in the field of Religion.