Corporeality and the Relation to God. An Analysis based on Fichte and Levinas.

提交的论文的第一个目标是以哲学的方式和基础神学的意图来阐述一个分类和概念的差异化网络，这使得能够准确地确定身体在与上帝的关系中的作用，从而以理智上合理的方式解释基督教的实践。通过包括约翰·戈特利布·费希特和伊曼纽尔·列维纳斯的作品，两位互补的作者的宗教哲学和身体理论对所调查的问题有重要意义。这样做是为了打开视角，以更广泛的类别，并增加辩论的力量。本研究的第二个目标是在费希特和列维纳斯的帮助下，就上述研究问题，即先验哲学和现象学，形成两种哲学传统的合作。因此，它有助于系统神学的两个学派之间的交流，这两个学派分别以两位作者之一和他们的传统为基础。为此，该研究表明，两种方法“经过一些修改”，如何在哲学上建立良好的基础和连贯的，并与基督教启示的基本内容一致。因此，它们构成了神学反思的合适基础。通过对两位复杂作者的推理进行精确的重构和讨论，本研究开辟了一些新的解释视角。它成功地澄清了之前辩论中的误解，并指出了选择其中一种方法的正当理由。它揭示了在两个思想世界之间进行翻译和调解的途径，甚至为重建长期共同的思维方式提供了可能性。在这一共同基础上，可以实现互补性组成部分和辩论战略的潜在整合以及相互建设性批评的机会，从而表明这种合作的成果。对于肉体性的宗教意义，对两位作者部分修改的贡献的解读，他们的合作丰富和对个体方面的分析，为寻求广度和差异化的可比较尝试的宗教-哲学肉体性意义理论提供了基本结构，同时通过其对话的开放性，能够被当代作家的各种方法所采用。在一个简短的示范应用的发展类别的两个领域的基督教信仰实践，圣餐和沉思，他们的解释力可以说明。

The first objective of the submitted dissertation is to elaborate in a philosophical way and with the intent of fundamental theology a differentiated network of categories and concepts, which enable to determine accurately the role of the body in the relationship with god, and therefore to interpret Christian practice in an intellectually justifiable way. By including the work of Johann Gottlieb Fichte and Emmanuel Levinas, the philosophies of religion and body theories of two complementary authors significant to the investigated question are consulted. This is done in order to open the perspective to a larger spectrum of categories and to increase the argumentative strength. The second objective of the study is to form ¿ with the aid of Fichte and Levinas ¿ a collaboration of two philosophical traditions in reference to the mentioned research question, transcendental philosophy and phenomenology. Thereby it contributes to a communication between two schools of systematic theology, which base themselves on one of the two authors and their traditions, respectively.For this purpose, the study shows how both approaches ¿ with a few modifications ¿ can be reconstructed as philosophically well-founded and coherent as well as in a line with the essential contents of Christian revelation. Therefore they constitute a suitable basis of theological reflection. By exactly reconstructing and discussing the reasoning of the two complex authors the study develops some new perspectives of interpretation. It succeeds in clearing up misunderstandings in the previous debate, and it points out the legitimate reasons for choosing one or the other approach. It reveals the way for a translation and mediation between the two worlds of thought and even for the possibility to reconstruct a long common way of thinking. On this common ground the potential integration of complementary constituents and argumentation strategies as well as the opportunities for a mutual constructive criticism can be achieved, thereby illustrating the fruitfulness of such a collaboration.Regarding the religious significance of corporeality, the interpretation of the partly modified contributions of both authors, their cooperative enrichment and the analysis of individual aspects provide the basic structure for a religio-philosophical theory of meaning of corporeality that seeks comparable attempts in breadth and differentiation, and that at the same time through its dialogical openness is capable of being adopted by a variety of approaches of contemporary writers. In a short exemplary application of the developed categories on two fields of Christian practice of faith, Eucharist and contemplation, their explanatory force can be illustrated.