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

Sacrifice, Sublimation and the Sublime

牺牲、升华与崇高

基本信息

批准号：
AH/G007993/1
负责人：
Douglas Hedley
金额：
$ 2.53万
依托单位：
University of Cambridge
依托单位国家：
英国
项目类别：
Research Grant
财政年份：
2009
资助国家：
英国
起止时间：
2009 至无数据
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FG007993%2F1
关键词：
Sacrifice Sublimation Sublime

项目摘要

The root meaning of 'sacrifice' has a basis in ritual practice. It usually means an offering, a giving up or rejection, the word as we are going to understand it signifies the substitution, or more profoundly sublimation, of an item or interest for a higher value or principle. I explore the tension between the potent, inherited imaginary of sacrifice, which still pervades much political rhetoric, artistic expression, and popular culture. There is, however, a deep gulf between the images and their emotional freight and how we employ an adequate conceptual apparatus for their articulation. One possible explanation is that the terminology of sacrifice is simply barbaric, archaic, and obsolete, and this would seem to be the view of many contemporary intellectuals. I propose, however, good reasons to think that issues of global conflict, problems of terrorism within states, and the ecological crisis highlight the continuing relevance of the topic of sacrifice for contemporary culture. I consider two opposing but deeply influential views of the role of sacrifice in modern thought. Both these opposing views form powerful attacks upon an inherited understanding of ethical theory. Both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche provide very radical critiques of the Judaeo-Christian synthesis of the idea of divine goodness and propitiatory sacrifice. In my discussion of both these writers I present a retrieval of the compatibility of the theory of divine goodness with the notion of sacrifice. I wish to counter both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche by proposing that the sublimity of true religion can be best understood in terms of the sublimation of an inalienable sacrificial dimension to human existence. Picking up on the observation of Joseph de Maistre that sacrifice is a universal and intractable element in human societies, we shall consider in some depth contemporary naturalistic views of religion, which have to interpret sacrifice in ways more readily amenable to scientific explanation. Indeed, the problem of sacrifice has become much more urgent through a resurgence of neo-Darwinism in recent anthropology, which is drawing on cognitive science and evolutionary psychology. In this section of the book I defend the position of René Girard against such reductionistic accounts. Girard holds that attempts to explain sacrifice in rationalistic terms prove inadequate. Girard's subtle theory of the scapegoat mechanism is a gauntlet thrown at attempts to purge religion of its sacred and primordial power. I consider the sublimation of sacrifice in aesthetic theories of the nineteenth century. Viewing art as grounded in the purifying power of suffering, these are theories in which art comes comes to replace religion as a form of consolation for the suffering of the world.Although the aesthetic theories of the nineteenth century fail to provide a satisfying replacement for religion, they can still serve to show up the inadequacies of any purely naturalistic account of human existence. Furthermore, the poets from Ovid to Milton present vividly the necessity for the transformation of self as a precondition for the realization of human identity. Sacrifice thus becomes the expression of the paradoxical constitution of human existence: our lives possess meaning precisely through the commitment to that which we consider more significant than the satisfaction of short-term preferences and, quite possibly, as even more important than our personal survival. In the final section I wish to address the formidable challenge to Christianity evident in critics as diverse as William Empson and Richard Dawkins that Christianity is not merely false, but wicked. In opposition to such critics, I argue that the cross is not merely an offence, but is the point where divine justice and mercy meet. Here I examine the relevance of traditional theories of the atonement from Anselm to barth for contemporary theology.

“祭祀”的本义在仪式实践中有基础。它通常意味着一种奉献、一种放弃或一种拒绝，这个词正如我们将要理解的那样，意味着一种替代，或者更深刻的升华，一种项目或利益对一种更高的价值或原则的替代。我探讨了强大的，继承的牺牲想象之间的紧张关系，这仍然弥漫着许多政治修辞，艺术表达和流行文化。然而，在图像和它们的情感负载以及我们如何使用适当的概念设备来表达它们之间存在着一条深深的鸿沟。一个可能的解释是，牺牲的术语只是野蛮的，古老的，过时的，这似乎是许多当代知识分子的观点。然而，我提出了很好的理由，认为全球冲突问题，国家内部的恐怖主义问题，以及生态危机突出了当代文化牺牲主题的持续相关性。我考虑了两种对立但对现代思想中牺牲的作用有深刻影响的观点。这两种对立的观点都对传统的伦理学理论形成了有力的攻击。克尔凯郭尔和尼采都对犹太教和基督教关于神的善良和赎罪牺牲的观点提出了非常激进的批评。在我对这两个作家的讨论中，我提出了一个关于神圣善良理论与牺牲概念的兼容性的检索。我想反驳克尔凯郭尔和尼采，提出真正宗教的崇高性最好理解为人类存在不可剥夺的牺牲维度的升华。约瑟夫·德·梅斯特（Joseph de Maistre）认为，牺牲是人类社会中一个普遍而又难以克服的因素，我们将从这一观点出发，深入探讨当代自然主义的宗教观，这种宗教观必须以更易于接受科学解释的方式来解释牺牲。事实上，由于新达尔文主义在最近的人类学中的复兴，牺牲的问题变得更加紧迫。新达尔文主义借鉴了认知科学和进化心理学。在本书的这一部分，我为勒内·吉拉德的立场辩护，反对这种还原论的解释。吉拉德认为，试图解释牺牲在理性的条款证明是不够的。吉拉德关于替罪羊机制的微妙理论是对试图清除宗教神圣和原始力量的挑战。我认为牺牲在十九世纪美学理论中的升华。这些理论把艺术看作是建立在痛苦的净化力量之上的，它们认为艺术取代了宗教，成为对世界痛苦的一种慰借形式。尽管世纪的美学理论未能提供一种令人满意的宗教替代品，但它们仍然可以用来显示任何纯粹自然主义的人类生存解释的不足之处。此外，从奥维德到米尔顿的诗人生动地提出了自我转变的必要性，作为实现人类身份的先决条件。因此，牺牲成为人类存在的矛盾结构的表达：我们的生命之所以有意义，正是因为我们致力于我们认为比满足短期偏好更重要的事情，而且很可能比我们个人的生存更重要。在最后一节，我想谈谈对基督教的巨大挑战，这些挑战在像威廉·燕卜荪和理查德·道金斯这样的不同批评家中显而易见，即基督教不仅是错误的，而且是邪恶的。在反对这样的批评，我认为，十字架不仅是一种犯罪，但在神的正义和怜悯满足点。在这里，我研究的相关性，传统理论的赎罪从安瑟伦巴特为当代神学。