1998 Fiscal Year Final Research Report Summary
Research on the Tradition of Nature-God Thought in the modern History of religious ideas
| Project/Area Number |
08610034
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
|
| Allocation Type | Single-year Grants |
|---|
| Section | 一般 |
|---|
| Research Field |
Religious studies
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Hitotsubashi University |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
FUKASAWA Hidetaka Hitotsubashi University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Professor, 社会学部, 教授 (30208912)
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
1996 – 1998
|
| Keywords | nature-god / nature-soteriology / modern religion / Jacob Boehme / Ernst Haeckel / Modernity in Germany / nationalism / critique of Christianity |
|---|
| Research Abstract |
The concept of nature-god implies the concept of the Godhood which comprises the natural as its own essencial characteristic. In this research I traceed the historical development of the idea of nature-god chiefly in German tradition. As a result of the research I ascertained the fact that beside the actualization of the natural in the naturalistic-secular sense there was and is a tradition of thought which can be called the "nature-soteriology" in the modern era. The idea of nature functioned not only as a critical tool agaist the dogma of revelation or against the modern society/culture, but it also acquired a sort of soteriological tone which promised an immanent transcendence through the resustitation of natural life-energy. In my research I thematized 5 topics as focal points of discussion : 1) actualization of the soteriological nature in the early modern nature-mysticism ; 2) the restoration of ancient panphysisism in the German roman ticism ; 3) nature-god and nature-soteriology in the anti-christian "voelkisch"religious movements in the 19th and the 20th centuries ; 4) the paradoxical transcendence of immanet nature in the Haeckelian idea of natural science and his Monistic Movement ; 4) the nature as "the not-identical" and its soteriological implication in the critical theory of Adorno and Bejamin.
|
