权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

Troeltsch and his time

特洛尔奇和他的时代

基本信息

批准号：
01510236
负责人：
SATO Shinichi
金额：
$ 0.13万
依托单位：
Kunitachi College of Music
依托单位国家：
日本
项目类别：
Grant-in-Aid for General Scientific Research (C)
财政年份：
1989
资助国家：
日本
起止时间：
1989 至无数据
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://kaken.nii.ac.jp/grant/KAKENHI-PROJECT-01510236/
关键词：
Ernst Troeltsch The Dispute about the method of historical science The absolute value of Christianity K.Lamprecht G.v.Below H.Rickert

项目摘要

K.Lamprecht, a German historian, tride to apply the method of natural science to history and the dispute about the method of historical science arose through it mainly in the eighteen-ninties in Germany. Then Ernst Troeltsch (1865-1923), a theological professor of Heidelberg university, also was interested in this dispute. How was it remarkable to him? In this study I examined this point and made his scientific position before the first World War clear. In 1897 and 1898 Troeltsch mentioned this dispute in annual reports of the religious and theological sciences and he criticized two books of Lamprecht negatively. On the other hand he appreciated the thesis named " New Historical Method " by G.v.Below, an adversary of Lasprecht, in an annual report of 1899. It is remarkable , that Troeltsch mentioned those writings from his theological standpoint. He had an awareness, that the absolute value of Christianity was threatened by the study in religious history of Christianity. At that time Below's point of view was not enough for his theological proposition and in this point the philosophical view of H.Rickert was more suggestive to him. In 1899 the dispute ended Provisiously. But Troeltsch attended to the research-works of Lamprechtian school also since then and criticized a writing of Gunther, a scholar of Kamprechtian school. So the dispute revived. It is important, that in his masterpiece " Soziallebren " ( 1912 ) Troeltsch mentioned his own method in contrast with Lamprecht's method. In this sense we can conform Troeltsch's assntial scientific position in his attitude to this dispute.

德国历史学家兰普雷希特试图将自然科学的方法运用于历史学，由此引发的史学方法之争主要发生在20世纪90年代的德国。当时海德堡大学的神学教授恩斯特·特勒尔奇（Ernst Troeltsch，1865-1923）也对这场争论感兴趣。这对他来说有何了不起？在这项研究中，我审查了这一点，并提出了他的科学立场，第一次世界大战前明确。在1897年和1898年Troeltsch提到这一争端的年度报告的宗教和神学科学和他批评两本书的Lamprecht消极。另一方面，他赞赏的论文命名为“新的历史方法“的G. v.下面，一个对手的Lasprecht，在1899年的年度报告。值得注意的是，特勒尔奇从他的神学观点提到了这些著作。他意识到，基督教的绝对价值受到了基督教宗教史研究的威胁。当时，下面的观点是不够的，他的神学命题和在这一点上的哲学观点的H.里克特是更有启发性的他。1899年，这场争论暂时结束。但特勒尔奇也从那时起开始关注兰普雷奇学派的研究工作，并对甘普雷奇学派学者冈瑟的一篇文章进行了批评。于是，争论再起。重要的是，在他的杰作“Soziallebren“（1912年）Troeltsch提到他自己的方法与兰普雷希特的方法。在这个意义上，我们可以把特勒尔奇的绝对科学立场与他对这场争论的态度相一致。