LADISLAV HEJDÁNEK ARCHIVES | Cardfile

Paul Ricœur (1980)

Ce qui m´a souvent étonné chez Heidegger, c´est qu´il ait, semble-t-il, systématiquement éludé la confrontation avec le bloc de la pensée hébraïque. Il lui est parfoi arrivé de penser à partir de l´Evangile et de la théologie chrétienne; mais toujours en évitant le massif hébraïque, qui est l´étranger absolu par rapport au discours grec, il évite la pensée éthique avec ses dimensions de relation à l´autre et à la justice, dont a tant parlé Levinas. Il traite la pensée éthique très sommairement comme pensée de valeur, telle que la pensée néo-kantienne l´avait présentée, et ne reconnaît pas sa différence radicale avec la pensée ontologique. Cette méconnaissance me semble parallèle à l´incapacité de Heidegger de fair le „pas en arrière“ d´une manière qui pourrai permettre de penser adéquatement toutes les dimensions de la tradition occidentale. La tâche de repenser la tradition chrétienne par un „pas en arrière“ a´exige-t-elle pas qu´on reconnaisse la dimension radicalement hébraïque du christianisme, qui est d´abord enraciné dans le judaïsme et seulement après dans la tradition grecque? Pourquoi réfléchir seulement sur Hölderlin et non pas sur les Psaumes, sur Jérémie? C´est là ma question. (Note introductive, in: 5349, Heidegger et la question de Dieu, Paris 1980, p. 17.)

Alfred North Whitehead (1933)

This growth of the idea of the essential rights of human beings, arising from their sheer humanity, affords a striking example in the history of ideas. It formation and its effective diffusion can be reckoned as a triumph – a chequered triumph – of the later phase of civilization. We shall find out how general ideas arise and are diffused, if we examine the sort of history which belongs to this particular instance.
(0029, Adventures of Ideas, Cambridge Univ. Press 1943, p. 15-16.)
Významný příklad v historii idejí představuje rozvoj ideje základních práv lidských bytostí rodících se z jejich pouhé lidskosti. Sám vznik této ideje a její aktivní rozšiřování může být považováno za triumf – ne však jednoznačný – pozdějšího stadia civilizace. Jestliže prozkoumám typ historie, který náleží tomuto konkrétnímu příkladu, púoznáme, jak vznikají obecné ideje a jak se rozšiřují.
(Dobrodružství idejí, Praha 2000, s. 22.) (z korektury)

Sirach ()

Rejoice not over thy greatest enemy being dead, but remember that we die all.
(ex: 7843, Webster´s Pocket Quotation Dictionary, Trident Press Int. 1997, p. 104.)
- – -
Do not rejoice over any one´s death; remember that we all must die.
(The Apocrypha, Oxford Univ.Press, N.Y. 1977, p. 139 – Sirach 8,7.)
- – -
8Neradúj se smrti ani nejuhlavnějšího nepřítele svého; pamatúj, že všickni umíráme.
(Apokryfy, Praha 1952, překlad Kralických, V. díl, Eccl.-Sirach 8, 8 – str. 223.)

Tennyson ()

He makes no friend who never made a foe.
(ex: 7843, Webster´s Pocket Quotation Dictionary, Trident Press Int. 1997, p. 106.)

Hendrikus Berkhof ((1979) 1986)

In the previous paragraph we presented one approach to the way of Jesus as the messiah of Israel. We might call that the approach from behind: we see him in the line of redemptive history, how he arises out of the Old Testament problematic, and gives and is answer to it. But with this approach he does not come fully within our purview. He is the fulfillment od Israel´s way precisely because he is more than a small segment of that way, namely a new beginning and a turn made by God. Therefore, to the approach from behind must be added an approach from above. In other words, there must be added an approach that starts from the Word, the creative and saving speech of God which in him became „flesh,“ that is, an historical human life. But because the word became historical in him, a dated life within human history, yet a third approach is possible and necessary, the approach from below, whereby we apply to his appearance the methodology of all historical investigation, and ascertain what he looks like in the light of a careful investigation of the sources and within the framework of his own time.
We regard these three approaches as complementary. All three relate to the manner in which eternity unites itself to time in Jesus the Christ. We could think of yet a fourth approach, one from before, from the perspective of what he works through the centuries in human hearts and in the peoples of the world. We cannot do without that approach either. In the study of the faith it is usually dealt with under other headings: the work of the Spirit, the church, justification, etc. We shall do that too, but wish to make a clear transition between Christology and the subsequent chapters. In this separate chapter on Christology we concern ourselves particularly with the approaches from above and from below. Thereby it should be noted that through the ages classical dogmatics knew only the first: the man Jesus was seen exclusively as the product of the Word becoming flesh, the “Word“ being thought of as the “second person“ of the Trinity. As a reaction there arose since the Enlightenment a strong emphasis on the approach from below. Ecclesiastical thinking often fiercely opposed that. Understandably so, because this supposed “purely /272/ historical scientific“ approach was often motivated by the desire to prove that Jesus had not been the Son of God, but only a uniquely gifted and inspiring man. Yet that does not as such justify the church´s opposition. If in Christ the Word has become flesh, it should be able to stand the test of historical-critical investigation. Precisely from the standpoint of faith, historical investigation is to be left free. …
(6402, Christian Faith, rev.ed., Grand Rapids (Mich.) 1986, p. 271-2.)