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K.Lamprecht将自然科学的方法应用于历史和有关历史科学方法的争议主要是在德国的18个ninties中引起的。然后，海德堡大学的神学教授恩斯特·特罗尔茨（Ernst Troeltsch，1865- 1923年）也对这一争端感兴趣。他怎么了？在这项研究中，我研究了这一点，并在第一次世界大战清楚地表现出了科学地位。 1897年和1898年，特罗尔茨（Troeltsch）在宗教和神学科学的年度报告中提到了这一争端，他对兰普雷奇（Lamprecht）的两本书负面批评。另一方面，他赞赏Lasprecht的对手G.V.Below的论文“新历史方法”，在1899年的年度报告中。非常引人注目，Troeltsch从他的神学角度提到了这些著作。他意识到，基督教在宗教史上的研究威胁到基督教的绝对价值。那时，低于他的神学主张还不足以说明H.Rickert的哲学观点对他更具启示性。 1899年，争议暂时结束。但是，特罗尔茨（Toeltsch）也参加了兰普雷赫蒂（Lamprechtian）学校的研究工作，并批评了坎普尔（Kamprechtian）学校的学者冈瑟（Gunther）的著作。因此，争端恢复了。重要的是，在他的杰作“ Soziallebren”（1912）中，Troeltsch提到了他自己的方法与Lamprecht的方法相反。从这个意义上讲，我们可以在他对这一争端的态度中构成Troeltsch的统一科学立场。