Several well-known researchers participated in that debate, amongst whom Richard Rorty, Meinrad Hebga, Harris Memel-Fot?, and more than seventy philosophers, historians, anthropologists, literary critics, and psychoanalysts from various countries. Paulin J. Hountondji is a Professor of Philosophy at the National University of Benin Republic, joint-laureate of Mohamed El Fasi 2004 prize. He is the Director of the African Centre of Higher Education in Porto-Novo. The American version of his book? philosophie africaine? : critique de l'ethnophilosophie was awarded the (...) Herskovits Prize in 1984. The book is part of the 100 best African books of the 20th century selected in Accra in the year 2000. (shrink)

Hermeneutik gilt heutzutage meistens als Bestandteil der Philosophie. Das ist aber eine verkürzte Sicht ihrer Gegenwart und erst recht ihrer Geschichte. Denn von Haus aus bezeichnet Hermeneutik alle Verfahren zur Auslegung von Texten. Sie begann in der Antike mit der Neu-Interpretation klassischer Dichter. Anschließend lernten die Christen die jüdische Bibel im Sinne ihres Evangeliums auszulegen. Sodann brauchte auch schriftliches Recht Interpretation, ebenso die philologisch-historische Quellenkritik der Geschichtswissenschaft. Jetzt erst führte die Philosophie die verschiedenen Varianten zu einer allgemeinen Hermeneutik zusammen. Daneben (...) hatten aber vier andere Wissenschaften eigene Auslegungstheorien und Methodenlehren entwickelt. Diese fünf Entwicklungspfade des gesamten Feldes werden hier zum ersten Mal von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart im Überblick dargestellt. (shrink)

John Haldons (H.) reich illustrierte Monographie vermittelt einen weiterführenden Einblick in die komplexen Zusammenhänge von Kriegführung und militärischer Organisation im Byzanz des 6. bis 12. Jh.s.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:UNDERSTANDING ST. THOMAS ON CHRIST'S IMMEDIATE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD Guy MANSINI, O.S.B. Saint Meinrad Seminary St. Meinrad, Indiana HE International Theological Commission's 1985 statement on " The Consciousness of Christ Concerning Himel £ and His Mission " undertakes to state what by faith Christians hold about the knowledge of Jesus. Jesus of Nazareth knew : first, that he was the Son of God, and that he possessed (...) divine and not merely prophetical authority; second, that his mission was to preach the Kingdom and die for the salvation of all; third, that he was founding a Church. Fourth and last, since he was dying for all, he knew the " all" he was dying for in such a way as to enable each Christian to say truly " he died for me " (see Gal. 2 :20). Beyond this the bare statement that Jesus was conscious of his identity and mission, the Commission declines to go, and expressly avoids " theological elaborations calculated to give an account of this datum of faith." 1 The traditional account of this datum is, of course, the theory of Christ's immediate (or " beatific") knowledge of God, and usually as elaborated by St. Thomas. It is an approach to pre1 " The Consciousness of Christ Concerning Himself and His Mission," in International Theological Commission: Texts and Documents, 1969-1985, ed. Michael Sharkey (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989), 307. Again, the Commission " rules out any a priori philosophical terminology " (p. 307). Hence I take the liberty of using " knowledge " where the Commission speaks of " consciousness." The Commission characterizes the cognitional state of affairs it imputes to Christ merely as a "presence" of the knowing-conscious subject to itself in its " heart." I take it that the Commission means to avoid being specific with regard to any distinction between conceptual and non-conceptual modes of knowledge, and that this is the reason it prefers "consciousness" to " knowledge." 91 92 GUY MANSINI, O.S.B. cisely this account of St. Thomas's that I would like to outline in the second part of this article. There are three things especially that seem to stand in the way of approaching St. Thomas's account today. First, there is some difficulty in seeing it precisely as that, an account of what the Commission calls the datum of faith. Second, a key distinction upon which St. Thomas's account depends, that between faith and knowledge, tends to be obliterated in contemporary analytic epistemology, where knowledge is described as "justified true belief." This makes it hard to see the difference St. Thomas supposes there is between the cognitive state of Christians, on the one hand, and that of Jesus, on the other. Third, some modern biblical theology discovers Jesus himself as the ·exemplar of Christian faith. Thus, even supposing we have kept the distinction between faith and knowledge, the required application of the distinction becomes impossible.2 I will be unable to deal at any length with these last two difficulties, but will advert to them briefly within the outline of an approach to St. Thomas's account that I mean to give here.3 I. St. Thomas's Position as an Account of the Datum of Faith The first difficulty, however, is to be addressed at the outset and at some length. It arises from the way in which St. Thomas presents his teaching on the knowledge of Christ in the Summa 2 Another cause of confusion as to what St. Thomas means by Christ's immediate knowledge of God might be said to be the popularity of Karl Rahner's " Dogmatic Reflections on the Knowledge and Self-Consciousness of Christ,'' Theological Investigations V (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1966) ; 193-215, where Rahner conflates consciousness and knowledge in a context where they need to be distinguished. This has been nicely sorted out, however, in a study by Raymond Moloney, "The Mind of Christ in Transcendental Theology: Raimer, Lonergan and Crowe," H eythrop Journal 25 (1984) : 288-300. s There is also the difficulty for this question of modern exegesis, a difficulty mentioned by the International Theological Commission. But this is a difficulty for the original apprehension of the datum of faith itself rather than for understanding St. Thomas... (shrink)