| 图书简介： |
transcendental anthropology; the Second Vatican Council; Vorgriff; Holy Mystery 卡尔·拉纳(Karl Rahner，1904-1984)是西方公认的二十世纪最伟大的天主教思想家、“当代托马斯·阿奎那”、“罗马天主教会静静的推动者”和“20世纪天主教教会的教父”。他作为罗马天主教指定的官方神学顾问在“梵二会议”上发挥了巨大的作用，不仅启迪了几代神学家，而且影响到自那以后整个天主教思想的发展。为了因应世俗化和现代化对天主教形成的挑战，拉纳倡导并积极从事基督教内外的对话，著述几乎涉及到神学和相关思想的所有领域，可以说著述等身，其中包括卷帙浩繁的《神学论集》(德文原本16卷，英译本23卷)。他的论述既与时俱进，又忠于基督教的传统。拉纳的“先验”风格时常透过其对“真理”的追求和对“真理”表达方式的追求微妙、婉转地表露出来。无论持何种立场，批评家们对他的著作的深度、广度和复杂程度无不深为感佩。1978年对代表着71个不同派别的北美基督教神学家的一项调查显示，在影响他们的最伟大的思想家当中，拉纳只是屈居托马斯·阿奎那与保罗·蒂里希之后，位居第三，名列奥古斯丁与马丁·路德之前。从这项调查的结果，人们可见他对神学思想的影响程度和广度之一斑。但是国内学界有关这样一个人物较为详细的论述却寥若晨星，几近阙如。在昔日对拉纳既有微词又有合作的约瑟夫·拉辛格(Joseph Ratzinger，1927—)成为当今教皇本笃十六之际，特别是在“中梵”关系成为话题和崇尚“对话”成为时代特色之际，笔者认为探析与当代天主教和当今教皇有着不解之缘的拉纳神哲思想、尤其是他赖以成名的“先验人学”就更显出独特的意义。本文沿着“先验人学”的来龙去脉这条主线展开的同时，还力求 (特别是在“生平著述”部分)贯穿一条把拉纳思想与当代哲学、与“梵二会议”之前的传统天主教神学相对照、与约瑟夫·拉辛格相关联的伏线。 一． 本文“导言——二十世纪天主教神学中的拉纳”力求把拉纳的思想缘起放到二十世纪的天主教神学的大背景中加以定位。首先，“导言”在“西方哲学的神性”视角之下，注意到作为理性思辨产物的“哲学家的上帝”与作为人格性的、“亚伯拉罕、以散和雅各的上帝”之间的复杂关系，点明拉纳的上帝属于人格性的上帝。其次，从“神本神学”向“人本神学”转折这个角度，论述了当代基督教神学多元主义现实之下的三个共同之处。通过“转向主体”、“神学的双重任务”和“方法问题”这三个共性或主题，确定拉纳在当代西方基督教思想发展中的坐标位置。“两次世界大战之间天主教神学中的拉纳”，论述了拉纳的神学人学是在克服天主教思想倾向中的守成方面，继承和发扬其中的创新方面的基础上发展起来的。 拉纳的思想带着自己所属的耶稣会的会祖依纳爵及其《神操》的灵秀思想的熏陶痕迹。拉纳在二十世纪的神学中处于两大传统——教会传统和德国传统——的交叉点。这决定了拉纳是一位哲学神学家，他的思想其实是“一种看来起来像哲学的神学”。从德国传统这方面而言，康德是拉纳在其基础性的思想建构中，尤其是在《在世之灵》中所回应的第一位哲学家。而在拉纳早期对康德的难题的研究中对他的思想影响最深刻的是海德格尔。罗马天主教传统中，托马斯·阿奎那、以及马雷夏对阿奎那的解释代表着对拉纳著述影响最大的源头。本文的“思想渊源”部分，所展开的就是德国和教会两大传统对拉纳思想的“定型”作用。 二． 因为拉纳的问题意识源于康德的《纯粹理性批判》，而他的《在世之灵》是针对康德的形而上学的可能性问题或人的认识的限度问题的立场所做出的回应，所以在阐述拉纳“先验人学”的来龙去脉方面康德的《纯粹理性批判》是无法回避的。但是本文在“第二章——思想渊源”中的“康德”部分，只想在拉纳与康德的思想有关的纬度上，为拉纳思想的出场搭建一个舞台。为此，本节只围绕两个主题展开，即《纯粹理性批判》中的形而上学的问题意识和先验方法。围绕第一个主题，本节将力图勾勒康德的“哥白尼式革命”的契机和本质——纯粹的思辨理性范围内的科学的形而上学的不可能性，以及相继地把这个“特殊的形而上学的”问题转移到实践理性领域之中去的必然性。围绕第二个主题，本节首先涉及先验方法在经典物理学中的起源，以及更遥远一点，在中世纪神学中的起源，然后到达康德激发出拉纳自己的问题意识之处。 在“《纯粹理性批判》所激发的拉纳问题意识”中，本文指出，如果我们接受，杂多要成为知识的一个对象必须在自我意识面前得到综合，而且如果我们进一步认同如此综合的活动是判断的逻辑形式，那么我们将接受，作为判断规则的那些范畴是这样的一些条件，对此所有的材料必须忍受，或者材料要成为对于人类主体而言的一个对象则必须予以符合的。正如康德在《纯粹理性批判》的“前言”中提纲挈领地指出的：“我必须早在对象被给予我之前、从而是先天地就在我里面将知性的规则作为前提，它在先天概念中得到表述，因而经验的所有对象都必然地遵照这些概念，而且必须与它们一致。”这把我们带到《纯粹理性批判》的中心，从而也是拉纳的战场，在这个战场上拉纳高举起这样一面战旗，就是在人的思辨的或者理论理性功能之内某种形而上学的可能性：在必然局限于感觉经验(“在世之灵”)的一种理智活动之内，认识实体——包括最高的实体。为了做的这一点，拉纳将不得不既接受又修正康德对先验方法之为先验的主体性的功能的理解。他的修正，或者毋宁说他的“重溯”，正是他继承康德或受到康德影响之处。 在我们为拉纳的“先验人学”搭建舞台的意义上，这一部分旨在《纯粹理性批判》的“先验分析论”对理论理性的合法使用范围的划界。就康德对拉纳的影响而言，或者就拉纳把康德作为他的问题意识和思想形成中的一个要素而言，《纯粹理性批判》的意义是它的先验方法。对于拉纳而言，康德的先验方法的重要性不只是作为一种确立明确的哲学立场的形式技巧，更重要的是用这种方法探究它的恰当对象领域时所揭示出的先验主体性的结构和功能。与康德不同的只是拉纳并不认同康德在《纯粹理性批判》中对从人的认识能力证明上帝存在的路径的否定，在《在世之灵》对此提出挑战，开辟出一条本来蕴含在康德的《纯粹理性批判》之中的、从人的有限主体性论证无限上帝的可能性的康庄大道。而这条康庄大道之开辟，则在很大程度上仰仗被他“唯一尊为吾师”的海德格尔的一套“现代化装备”。 三 在“第二章——思想渊源”的“海德格尔”一节中，本文首先挖掘了海德格尔思想中的神学纬度和神学底蕴，指出海德格尔的思想不仅启发过道地的无神论者如萨特，但是这种具有“准无神论”特征的思想也确实启发过道地的有神论者如拉纳。海德格尔不是一个没有宗教信仰的思想家，他的信仰生活只是从保守的天主教制度之内的信仰，转入个人的自由的基督教信仰。正是这一点解释了为什么，海德格尔的哲学对西方形而上学传统、包括经院神学传统发起的致命打击——体现为对“存在—神—逻辑学”的挞伐，以及为什么在一些研究者看来海德格尔的哲学带有路德和加尔文的新教神学气息的原因。海德格尔对“本体—神—逻辑学”的批判，不仅是对“本体”、即一般意义上的传统形而上学部分的批判，也是这个孪生联体中的“神”这个部分、即对传统神学部分所进行的批判。而在我们看来，这正是海德格尔的这项清理工作为拉纳切实地把“西方形而上学”“与存在论和神学这些名称维系在一起”铺平了道路。拉纳正是注意并延伸了海德格尔思想中通过对传统“本体 -神-逻辑学”的批判所开启的道路。海德格尔对传统神学的批判，正是为了真正的神学的出场；他的批判实际上可以理解为康德在《纯粹理性批判》中对传统神学批判的继续。就像康德的批判是为上帝存在的“道德论论证”的出场搭建舞台一样，海德格尔的这种批判实际上是为真正的上帝的在场、以及拉纳通过“先验人学” 所蕴育的上帝存在的“人学论证”搭建了舞台。 正是海德格尔的“基本本体论”对于拉纳的思想起到了洗礼的作用。首先，拉纳采纳了海德格尔的出发点，即提出存在问题的人。拉纳把“此在”看作是对存在的一个独一无二的追问者，把发出追问的人既当作形而上学的起点，又当作形而上学的地平圈。拉纳通过把形而上学的起点置于人对存在的发问之中，便能够主张，对它的可能性之条件的反思将揭示出存在的意义和发问者的意义。其次，拉纳同海德格尔一起据斥“黑格尔的范畴思想领域”，而且运思到日常经验的水平，及其在前- 反思认识和经验中的根源。人和世界在“此在”中的此种关系的这些非对象化的结构，是任何对于世界的对象化经验之可能性的条件。拉纳追随海德格尔，谈到存在的“发光性”(luminosity)和“隐匿性”(hiddenness)。这种两重性对于两个思想家而言是在“此在”追问存在这样的事实中被表明。对于拉纳而言，人对存在本身的追问也意味着人的超越性。最后，与《存在与时间》相关，海德格尔对时间性／时间状态(temporality)的强调对拉纳的影响是显而易见的，即在拉纳和海德格尔之间在方法和问题意识方面存在着一些相似性。 尽管拉纳采用了海德格尔的“重溯”方法，及其对于存在的在世性和历史性的洞见，但是拉纳明确地选作对话对象的思想家并不是海德格尔，而是托马斯·阿奎那。拉纳曾提到自己就像教皇利奥十三那样喜欢托马斯阿奎那。在“教会传统”一节当中，文章首先指出拉纳的神学和哲学训练是在托马斯·阿奎那的传统当中进行的。拉纳是从一种当代的观点来探索托马斯的这样一些基本观念。正是托马斯的认识论成为拉纳自己的思想在阿奎那和近代德国思想之间纵横捭阖的场所。不过，拉纳所探索的主要不是托马斯对经验的强调。他的关注中心，无论在《在世之灵》、《圣言的倾听者》之中，还是在他的后来的那些著作之中，都是阿奎那有关认识的先天方面的内容，尤其是能动理智之光。通过阐明两者之间的统一关系，拉纳力图调和阿奎那知识学说中能动的理智之光这个方面与它的经验性的方面。正是在这一讨论中，拉纳吸收了康德的先天感性形式和知性范畴的推论，以及海德格尔对于作为“在世之在”的人的存在中的临在性和隐匿性(presence and hiddness)的说明。 按照拉纳的观点，阿奎那有别于一种把心灵的先验的地平圈局限于感性直观的康德式的看法。对阿奎那而言，理智的超越性是朝向存在本身的，而且在这种超越到感官经验的限度之彼岸的运动中，为作为有效的人类知识的形而上学提供了根基。在《在世之灵》之中，拉纳阐发出这一地平圈先验推论，以表明他不是在主张对事物本身的一种直接直观，而是主张，对于世界的日常判断性的知识含蓄地包含着，作为它自己的可能性之条件，对于形而上学性的存在和它的原始的、先验的结构的肯定。去否定这种肯定就是报复性地、含蓄地肯定它。在这方面，他是在步由鲁塞洛(Pierre Rousselot)马雷夏(Joseph Marechal)所肇始的对阿奎那的诠释之后尘，他们把认识论的起点作为形而上学的一种进路引入托马斯主义之中。最后，在对拉纳形成其神哲思想的各种影响中，罗耀拉的依纳爵及其《神操》的影响也是不可替代的。按照拉纳的说法，他从祈祷和耶稣会形式中所吸收的依纳爵的灵性观比耶稣会内外的所有哲学和神学都重要。依纳爵把自由置于记忆、理解和意志之先的提法，深深地影响到拉纳。 四． “先验人学”作为拉纳神学之中的一根“红线”，可以追溯到他早期著作中为神学所确立起来的哲学基础之中。拉纳所采用的三个相互关联的步骤的第一步是《在世之灵》，其目的是借助对于托马斯阿奎那的重溯，确立拉纳所称的托马斯式的知识形而上学。处于《纯粹理性批判》之后的学术环境之下的拉纳，事实上面临两条道路选择：要么绕过康德的先验主体性的问题意识，但是这要冒着使自己游离于现代思想的轨道之外的风险；要么是努力“通过康德来克服康德”。得益于约瑟夫·马雷夏和马丁·海德格尔思想的襄助，拉纳选择了第二条道路。拉纳在其《在世之灵》当中采纳了康德有关知识的可能性条件的先验反思方法。此外，他不仅接受了康德有关形而上学的可能性的问题，而且接受了康德的这样一个假设，就是说，任何真正科学的神学必须植根于传统意义上的形而上学的可能性之中，即，对绝对的认识之中。但是拉纳与康德存在很大的不同，康德否认了那种可能性，而且转向实践理性和道德形而上学，而拉纳则力图表明这种从哲学上开启通往“绝对”的路径具有合理性的和批判性的可能性。像康德一样，他阐明人的知性中的先天主观形式，以及所有有效知识的经验性的和时空性的基础。但是，对于拉纳而言，认识并不局限于可能的经验性的经验；它同时超越感官经验的“世界”，到达对于绝对存在本身一种朦胧却真实的认识。 这种知识的形而上学的那些蕴含，在拉纳为其神学奠定牢固的哲学基础的第二个步骤——《圣言的倾听者》当中得到深入探讨。拉纳在他的第二部奠基性的著作《圣言的倾听者》之中，致力于“关于对启示之顺从能力的本体论”，阐发人接受启示的可能性。他的目的是要表明，人类认知者的追问揭示的不仅是存在的敞开性和隐匿性，而且揭示出人的存在的历史性和自由。如果历史性是人的存在的一种本体论结构，那么历史就是上帝保持静默或上帝可能发出言语的场所。启示的事实和内容，因为是历史性的，所以仍然是自由的和难以预料的。于是拉纳在一种明确的神学语境之内探究人的超越性与历史性的关系。这本由演讲结集而成的著作的要点是通过先验问题来把握这样一个预设，就是上帝已经用历史和用人的语言启示自己。《圣言的倾听者》在某种意义上是罗马天主教第一部力图在启示的先验根基方面来理解启示的宗教哲学著作。 在第三个步骤中，拉纳发展出“超自然的实存”(“supematural existential”)这个概念，这是拉纳从神学的立场反思前述两本著作而获得的成果。拉纳引入“超自然的实存”概念的主要目的是用来说明在人的生存中上帝自我传通的普遍临在。对于拉纳而言，上帝的自我传通提供了它自己在人身上被接受的可能性条件，但是它并不而且不能保证恩典将被所有的人所接受。只能说恩典是没有差池地奉献给所有的人的。对拉纳而言，自由地接受被超自然地提升了的人的超越性(超自然的实存)是拯救。任何接受自己的人格的人——人格包括了向上帝的一种超自然的定向——都获得拯救，无论这个人是否与作为先验启示的一种范畴性主题化的基督教有没有任何关系。这个观点在拉纳著名的“匿名基督教”概念中得到发展。 五． 本章在上述哲学奠基的基础上论述拉纳的先验人学的必要性和任务之后，展开拉纳神学人学那些先验纬度。首先，在拉纳看来，人是灵，即人的先验特征是一个主体或者人格。在人类经验的所有活动中，人不仅认知和意欲经验的对象，而且意识到并肯定它自身作为这种经验的主体。这种自我经验不同于对于对象的经验，而是主体连同对于对象的经验而直接或含蓄地“共同—经验”到它自身。这样的“共同—经验”伴随着对于认识对象的一种含蓄的、非对象性的“共知”，所以在这种“共知”中存在总是已经显示和得到承认，但是没有得到主题性的认识。拉纳用“在先把握”(Vorgriff)来特指人们对于存在的认识。人具有一种预先把握，预先把握到伴随对于特定的存在物的对象性把握的存在。这种“在先把握”就是一种先验经验。对于拉纳而言，人的特性之所以是灵，是因为人们可靠地具有这样的先验经验。对于自我的非主题性的经验和对于存在的非主体性经验(向所有的实在敞开)——它们一道构成先验经验，是事实上是人类经验的其他形式的可能性的必要条件。 其次，人是物质。尽管人有一种先行把握，对于存在的先行把握，包括对于上帝的绝对存在，但不是对于存在的一种完全的和完美的理解。这是因为人是有限的灵，本质上与世界相关的灵，物质的灵。人类主体返归他自己，以及朝向上帝(即，人的属灵契机)只有通过遭遇其他有限的实在才能给予。基于对物质的托马斯主义的理解，拉纳论证说，物质的人是空间性的和时间性的。这意味着人的自我实现，主体返归自我，只有通过感性对象的中介才能发生，更重要的是，只有通过其他人的中介才能发生。 第三，人之为人际。作为时间性的和时间性的人，生存于与历史中的他人的本质关系之中。对于拉纳来说，这种主观际性或者与他人的关系性是人的先验存在的先验本质性。在拉纳看来，他人并不是与作为一个个体的我的自我实现并驾齐驱，而是自我实现之中的一个必要的契机。这表明，人的超越性——这在所有的人类行动中被含蓄地肯定了的，并非寓于两个方面：主体返归自身，以及向存在本身而且从而向上帝敞开或定向，而是还有第三个方面。向他人的必然定向或者相关联性也是人的一个先验方面。对拉纳而言，在人的主体方面而言的占有自身的原始意义上所理解的人的自由，只能与人类主体与他人和上帝的一种必然关联性一道，并因为这种关联性而发生。 第四，上帝是人的超越性之“鹄的”(“所归”)。对于拉纳而言，人之为灵、之为物质、之为人际，都受到向着所有可能的经验对象的总体性的一种先验的朝向之条件限制。这样的人具有对于存在本身的一种先行把握，而这使所有的具体的认知和意志行动成为可能。这种先行把握以上帝的绝对存在作为其目标、终点或鹄的 (das Worahufhin)。尽管所有的人必然地和可靠地具有这样的对于上帝的一种先验经验，但是并非所有的人从概念上把这种经验作为一种上帝经验来把握。对上帝的这种先验经验先于反思，是一种非对象性的或前-概念的经验。借助拉纳对于先验的上帝经验与随继的对于那种经验的反思之间的区别，我们就可以理解拉纳有关上帝存在的那些经典证明的立场。他总是强调，先前的那些上帝存在的证明都是概念性的或反思性的证明。而对上帝的唯一证明源于把具体的人类存在加以彻底的追问。其次，拉纳表明他自己的、上帝作为人的超越之鹄的的上帝证明不是本体论的证明。因为拉纳并非从上帝的观念前移到断言上帝存在，而是表明人类对有限对象的认识活动本身已经包括对上帝作为认识活动之“鹄的”(Woraufhin)的上帝的先验认识。这正是拉纳有别于传统上帝存在证明的“人学证明”的精髓。 第五，人先验经验的“鹄的”上帝是神圣的奥秘。尽管人们谈论人的超越性之“鹄的”的方式有许多种，但是利用那些传统的哲学和神学术语谈论人的超越性之鹄的如今是成问题的。拉纳力求发现一条避免误解的谈论人的超越性之“鹄的”的道路，这条道路把读者的注意力导向他们自己的经验而不是任何传统的上帝概念。对拉纳用“神圣奥秘”的意思的分析将进一步昭示拉纳基本的上帝概念。拉纳列举了作为奥秘的上帝在先验经验中揭示出来的三个主要特征。首先，作为奥秘的上帝是无名的。上帝的所有概念或者名讳都是只源于对于上帝之“在先把握”的反思，而这个“在先把握”是人的超越性之无限的、无名的视野。其次，作为奥秘的上帝是无限的。人的“在先把握”所指向的那个奥秘是完全无限的。第三，作为奥秘的上帝不是任凭我们处置的东西。人在其属灵的本质方面之所以可能，只是因为它的向奥秘之定向。正是对“鹄的”的那种非主题性的共同-经验，即对作为无名的、无限的和处于我们控制之外的鹄的的经验，使对有限事物——人的特性——的命名、限定和控制成为可能。范畴知识之所以可能只是因为人向上帝的奥秘之先验定向。人类生存的最终源头是在于神秘的事物之中，或者像拉纳有时所言，人的本质是奥秘。作为人的自由和爱的根基和视野，根据拉纳，人的超越性之神秘的鹄的非常值得被称之为神圣的。 第六．爱上帝与爱邻人是同一的。对于拉纳而言，上帝是人的自由和爱的先验性之鹄的。人的自由不仅来自作为其根基的上帝，而且指向作为其最终目标的上帝。恰如人的知识因为对上帝的“在先把握”成为可能一样，人的自由的完全实现或者真正运用发生在对于上帝的一种狂喜的、无私的爱之中。而爱上帝与爱邻人在拉纳思想中是同一的。在爱上帝与爱邻人的这种同一中，我们达到了拉纳神学“先验人学”的最终结论。 六． 第五章就拉纳“先验人学”所蕴含的“匿名基督徒”学说及其内在逻辑所提供的一种宗教对话平台的角度展开拉纳在对话理论方面的贡献和实践，勾勒了拉纳的“先验人学”思想对“梵二会议”和当代天主教走向关联。本章首先指出，拉纳的“匿名基督徒”的观念是他的先验人学的必然延伸，是我们上文论及的他有关“超自然的实存”以及相关的上帝普救恩典观的一种继续。对拉纳而言，上帝的拯救旨意是普遍的，因为所有的人都被提供了上帝的自我传达，而这是人的最终成全。任何承认自己具有拉纳“先验人学”所述的那种人格的人——人格包括了向上帝的一种超自然的定向——都能获得拯救，无论这个人是否与作为先验启示的一种范畴性主题化的基督教有没有任何关系。“匿名基督徒”观念的实质是：在“人是天生的圣言的倾听者”这个大前提下，立足潜在的“天生基督徒”和已经现实化了的、认信的 “显明的基督徒”，认可和宽容现实中“匿名的基督徒”。 其次，本章指出，在“对话”与“教会向世界开放”在“梵二会议”时代作为口号被提出来之后，拉纳身体力行“对话”精神。带着这种态度，拉纳开始与自然科学中的一些代表人物进行对话。特别值得一提的是，拉纳还尝试与马克思主义者进行对话。身为教会中的人物，拉纳自然积极参与到制度化的对话形式之中，并积极参加并推动普世教会对话。拉纳还积极开展亚伯拉罕宗教之间的对话，特别是在与伊斯兰教的对话中形成对于“三位一体”开拓性的观点。另外，拉纳的对话态度和宽容思想还体现在他对多元主义的肯定态度方面。在此基础上，拉纳赞成教会的本土化。并且认为，对话和宽容是人性社会的基础。 第三，本章追溯了拉纳对“梵二会议”的影响痕迹。尽管“匿名基督徒”没有被明确写入大会文件，但是它所体现出的普救观念和对话精神却实实在在地影响到了 “梵二会议”的相关文件及其随后的走向。如果拉纳是第一个开拓新的基督教宗教神学道路的人，那么“梵二会议”则是第一个开始阐明它的会议。“梵二会议”在论述基督教会关于其他信仰以及基督教会自身与它们的关系之历史方面代表了一个号召与其他宗教认真对话的里程碑。在约翰·保罗二世领导下，在有关其他宗教的公开声明方面向前迈出的步伐，都体现着拉纳的“先验人学”思想的内涵，是对拉纳的思想的认可和实践。但是随着曾经是拉纳在梵二会议上的改革同路人、后来人们所抨击的保守人物拉辛格成为新教皇，当前教会的走向和教皇的言行值得密切关注。也许与之既有合作又有不合的拉纳思想仍然不失一条从正反两个方面洞悉其中奥秘的便捷进路。 Karl Rahner (1904-1984) is the greatest catholic theologian recognized by the west, and is honored as "the Contemporary Thomas Aquinas," "the Quiet Mover of the Church," "the Father of the 20~(th) Century Church". As the official theologian at the Second Vatican Council, he played a great role, not only edifying generations of the coming theologians, but also influencing the development of Catholic thought since then. In order to face the challenge posed by the secularization and modernization, Rahner advocated and practiced the dialogues within and without the Christianity, with writings almost covering every area in the related field, among them being huge Theological Investigations (16 vols. in the original, 23vol. in English). His treatise is both keeping the pace with times and being loyal to the traditions of Christianity. His style of "Transcendental" was often revealed subtly through his pursue of the "Truth" and the expression of it. No matter what positions they took, his critics always showed their respects for his depth and wideness. A survey, done in 1978 on theologians in the North America, who represented 71 different confessions showed that among the greatest thinkers who influenced them most, Rahner is ranked the third, just behind Thomas Aquinas and Paul Tillich, standing before Augustine and Martin Luther. From this survey result, we can get a glimpse of Rahners"s influences on theological thoughts. Unfortunately, the detailed studies of such a crucial figure in the academics in China are very few, almost none. When the then Joseph Ratzinger(1927-) has become the nowadays pope Benedict XVI, especially when the relationship of China with the Vatican has become the hot topic, we believe that it is significant to explore Rahnerian theological-philosophical thoughts which are related to the contemporary Church and the present Pope, particularly the doctrine of "Transcendental Anthropology" which made Rahner his name. This paper will take the line of cause and effect of the doctrine as its masterstroke, and at the same time try to run an assistant line through the paper, which is the line of contrast between Rahner"s thought and the theological one before the Second Vatican Council in particular and the philosophical one in general, especially the contrast between Rahner and Joseph Ratzinger in the relevant ways (particularly in the section of "Life and Writings").A.The "Introduction—-Rahner in the 20~(th) Century Theology" of this paper aimed to put the origin of Rahner"s thought in the context of the catholic theology in the 20th century and locates it in this context. Firstly, under the subtitle "the divinity of western philosophy", we notice that the "philosopher"s God" as the result of rational speculations is different from the personal God as "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob", and their complicated relations, pointing out that God for Rahner is the personal God. Secondly, in the perspective of the turn form the "God-oriented theology" to the "Anthrop-oriented" theology, we discuss the three characteristics in common. Through "return to the subject," the "dual task of theology," and the "method problem," the paper tries to determine the coordinate of Rahner"s anthropology in the contemporary development of Christian thought. Under the subtitle "Rahner between the First and the Second World Wars," we argue that the theological anthropology of Rahner is developed based on overcoming the conservative aspects and carrying forward the creative elements.Rahner"s thought is marked by the formation of Jesuits (to which he belongs) and the Spiritual Exercises of its founder Ignatius of Loyola. As a matter of fact, Rahner"s thought is located at the point of intersection between two great traditions—the tradition of Church and the tradition of German philosophy. On the part of German philosophy, I. Kant is the first philosopher he made (especially in the Spirit in the World) a response to, and Heidegger is the greatest influence on Rahner"s early thoughts. On the part of Roman Catholic tradition, Thomas Aquinas, and the interpretation of Aquinas by Joseph Marechal represented the most influences on Rahner"s writings. In the "Resources of Rahner"s Thought", we will discuss those molding effects on Rahner"s thought.B.The problematic of Rahner derived from Kant"s the Critique of Pure Reason, and his the Spirit in the World is the response by him to the position on possibility of metaphysics and the limit of human knowledge Kant held in its Critique. For this reason, we cannot avoid Kant"s Critique in the study of the source and effect of the "transcendental anthropology" established by Rahner. But in the section of Kant of the chapter "Resources of Rahner"s Thought," we only restrict ourselves to Kant only in the dimension of the relevance of Kant to Rahner, building up a stage for Rahner"s thought. Hence this section only focuses on two themes, that is, the problematic ofmetaphysics in the Critique and the transcendental method. Regarding the first theme we sketches the occasion and nature of the "Copernican Revolution", i.e., the impossibility of metaphysics within pure speculative reason and the consequent necessity of transposing the "special metaphysical" questions to the domain of practical reason. Around the second theme, we discuss the transcendental method, its origins in classical physics, and in medieval theology, and then the place where Kant inspires the problematic of Rahner. There Rahner defenses the possibility of metaphysics within the theoretical reason or speculative reason, that is, Rahner argues for the possibility of knowing the entities, including the absolute entity, in the intelligent action which is necessarily restricted to the sensible experiences (spirit in the world). In order to do this, Rahner have no choice but to both accept and revise Kant"s understanding of transcendental method. It is the revision (or retrieval) by Rahner that is what Rahner take over from Kant or being influenced by Kant.In the sense we establish the stage for the emergence of Rahner"s thought, this part of the paper intends to discuss the delimitation of the legal usage of theoretical reason in Kant"s Critique. As far as Kant"s influence on Rahner, the importance of the Critique is the transcendental method in it. What is different between Kant and Rahner is that Rahner disagrees with the denial by Kant of the way of approving the existence of God through the human ability of knowledge, and it is to this that Rahner in his Spirit in the World to challenge, paving a way (implied in the Critique in Rahner"s view) to argue for the possibility of the indefinite God from a definite subjectivity of human beings. In doing this Rahner depends largely on "the modernized equipment" of Heidegger whom Rahner honors as his only teacher.C.In the section of Heidegger in the second chapter "Resources of Rahner"s Thought," we first of all dig up the theological implications, pointing out that the thought of Heidegger not only inspired the atheist Sartre, but also did enlighten the thought of a real theist Rahner. To us, Heidegger is not a thinker without faith, but what characterize his faith is that he changed from the faith in the Catholicism to the free Christian faith. It is this point that can explain why the criticism of Heidegger against the traditional metaphysics expressed as the criticism of the "onto-theo-logy". The criticism made by Heidegger against the "onto-theo-logy" has to parts, one is against the traditional metaphysics, the other is against the traditional theology. Rahner follows the way Heidegger opens for the development of a new theology. It isjust as the criticism of the traditional ways of proving the existence of God is to clear the way for his moral argument for the existence of God, the criticism by Heidegger against the "onto-theo-logy" prepares the way for Rahner"s anthropological argument for the existence of God.The "fundamental ontology" of Heidegger exerts an baptismal function on Rahner"s thought. First, Rahner accepts the starting-point of Heidegger, that is, the questioning man. Rahner takes the "Dasein" as the unique questioner, and takes the man who questions as the starting-point of metaphysics, and the horizon of metaphysics. In posing the starting-point in the questioning of man about Being, he can make a claim that the meaning of Being and the questioner can be revealed though the reflection on the condition of its possibility. Second, Rahner and Heidegger rejecting the "categorical thought domain of Hegel," moving to the daily experience, and its origin in the pre-reflective knowledge and experience. In following Heidegger, Rahner talks about "luminosity" and "hiddenness." And finally, the emphasis Heidegger put on temporality influenced evidently on Rahner.Rahner accepts the method of "retrieval" of Heidegger, and his insights of worldliness and historicity, but the dialogue target Rahner chooses is Thomas Aquinas. The theological training of Rahner is done in the tradition of Thomas Aquinas. It is the thought of Thomas that offer the place for Rahner"s thought to maneuvers between the thought of Thomas and the modern German thought. In this respect, Rahner follows the steps taken by Pierre Rousselot and Joseph Marechal in the interpretation of Thomas Aquinas. In addition, the influence on Rahner by Inagius of Laoyarla and his Spiritual Exercises should not be ignored in tracing the resources of Rahner"s thought.D.In the chapter three, we point out that the "transcendental anthropology" as a scarlet line can be traced back to the philosophical foundation for his theology. In doing this, Rahner makes three steps. One is the Spirit in the World, the aim of which is to establish the metaphysics of knowledge called by Rahner, through retrieving Thomas Aquinas. In the context of post-Critique, Rahner has to ways to go: one is to round the problematic of transcendental subjectivity, rising moving away form the modern track of thought, the other is to "overcome Kant through Kant". Supported by Marechal and Heidegger, Rahner takes the second way. In his Spirit in the World, accepts the Kantian method of transcendental reflection regarding the possibility of knowledge.In addition, he not only accepts the Kantian question of the possibility of metaphysics, but also takes over Kant"s such a presupposition that any true scientific theology must roots itself into the possibility of the traditional metaphysics, that is, into the knowledge of the absolute. But Rahner differentiates himself from Kant by trying to show that the way opening to "absolute" by philosophy has its rationality and critical possibility, while Kant denying such a possibility, and turning to the practical reason. Like Kant Rahner clarifies the a priori subjective forms in the understanding, and the experimental basis and the temporality-space basis of all valid knowledge. But to Rahner, knowledge is not restricted to the possible experimental experience; at the same time it transcends the sensible "world", reaching a dimly but true knowledge of the being itself.This kind of implication is deepened in his second step for his theological foundation in philosophy, that is, Hearer of the World. In his second foundational work, he applies himself to the "ontology of the obedience to the revelation", explaining the possibility of man to achieve the revelation. His aims at showing that what is revealed by the questioning of human knower is not only the openness and hidenness of being, but also the historicity and freedom of human existence. If historicity is a kind of ontological structure of human existence, history is the place where God keep silence or send out his word. The fact and content of revelation are historical, so they are free and unpredictable. Thus Rahner explore the transcendence and historicity of human beings in a theological context. The key point of this work of Rahner is to grasp such a presupposition though the transcendental question, that is, God has revealed himself through human history and word. The Hearer of the Word in a sense is the first book of religious philosophy in the history of Roma Catholic Church.In the third step, Rahner developed the notion of "transcendental existential", as the result of reflection on the first two books from a theological viewpoint. Given certain data of revelation, human existence is analyzed in the conditions of its possibility. The main reason why Rahner introduces the notion is to explain the universal presence of God"s self-communication. For Rahner, God"s self-communication offers the condition of possibility for his acceptance on the part of human being, but it doesn"t guarantee that everyone will achieve the grace. We can only say that the grace falls unfailingly on all people. For Rahner freely accepting the "supernatural existential" means salvation. Any person who accepts himself as personal, in personal included anatural orientation to God, al will be saved, whether the man has related to Christianity as the categorical themenization of the transcendental revelation. This idea is developed in the famous notion of the "synonymous Christian".E.In chapter four "the basic elements of Rahner"s transcendental anthropology", based on the above preparatory discussion of Rahner"s transcendental anthropology, we discuss the necessity and task of Rahner"s transcendental anthropology, then developing the transcendental dimentions of Rahner"s theological anthropology. Firstly, to Rahner, human is spirit, i.e., the transcendental trait of human being is a subject or person. In all the activities of human experience, human not only is knowing and willing the object of experience, but also be aware of himself as such a subject. This self-experience is different from objective experience, it is a kind of experience in which human being "co-experience" himself implicitly or explicitly with the objective experience. This "co-experience" is companied by implicitly or explicitly "co-knowing" the objects of the knowledge, and this co-knowing is non-objective. Rahner use Vorgriff to refer to such knowledge of being. According to Rahner human being has a kind of pre-apprehension, pre-apprehends the being of apprehending the objective apprehension of particular beings. This Vorgriff is a kind of transcendental experience. For Rahner, why human being as spirit is that human beings unfailingly have this transcendental experience, this making the possibility of other forms of human experience.Secondly, human is material. Although human has a Vorgriff, a pre-apprehension of being, including the appreciation of the absolute of God, it is not the perfect understanding of being. It is because human is spirit, essentially related to the world, is a kind of spirit of material. To Rahner, human return to himself, and orientation to God (the spiritual moment of human) only can be given through encountering other finite entities. Based on the Thomist understanding of material, Rahner argues that material human being is of temporality and space. This means that the self-realization, the subject returning to himself, can occur only by the mediation of sensible objects, and more important, only through the mediation of other people.Thirdly, human is interpersonal. As person of time and space, human lives in the relationship with other people in history. For Rahner, this interpersonal or relationship with others is the transcendental nature of human transcendental being. In Rahner"s view, other person is not paralleled to self as a individual, but a necessary moment inthe self-realization. It indicates that human transcendence, which is implicitlyaffirmed in all human activities, is not consisted in two parts-----the subject returningto himself and his opening to being itself or oriented to God, but consisted in three parts. Necessary orientation to other person or relatedness with other person is one of human transcendental aspect.Fourthly, God is the Worahufhin of human transcendence. According to Rahner, human being as spirit, as material, as interpersonal, has a Vorgriff of being itself, and this making all particular action of knowing and willing possible. The aim or end or Worahufhin is this Vorgriff is the absolute being of God. This experience of God is priori to reflection, is a kind of non-objective experience or pre-conceptual experience. In virtue of the difference between the transcendental experience of God and the followed the reflection on the experience we can approach the position of Rahner on the classical arguments for the existence of God. He insists that all the previous arguments are only conceptual or reflective evidence. The source of the only evidence is from the complete questioning of the particular experience of human being. Furthermore, Rahner points out that his argument is not an ontological one. Because he didn"t move from the concept of God to the assertion that God exists, but shows that human action of knowledge of finite objects already implies the transcendental knowledge of God as the Woraufhin of the act of knowledge. This is the place where Rahner"s anthropological argument differs from the previous ones.Lastly, God as the Woraufhin is the holy mystery. It is nameless, infinite, being out of our disposal. And finally, the love of this God as holy mystery is identified with the love of neighbors, with this Rahner"s transcendental anthropology has reached its conclusion.F.In the fifth Chapter, we discuss the notion of the "synonymous Christian" implied in Rahner"s transcendental anthropology, and its inner logic"s offering of a dialogue platform, on which Rahner himself set up a good example of doing dialogue with parties within and without Christianity. In short, we point out that Rahner"s transcendental anthropology and its logical implication "synonymous Christian" is a basis established by Rahner for dialogue and tolerance. And Rahner"s thought in this respect influences the Second Vatican Council and the development of Church after it. Rahner"s thought is significant for the understanding of the new pop and the future movement of the Church. |
