Walter Kasper and Schelling
The interest of the young Kasper, who took as his basis of reference and discussion the philosophy of the second Schelling, follows by and large the path that was opened up by Drey. The latter had drawn the lines of a theology conceived as a positive science by adapting in an original manner a number of Schelling’s ideas on the methodological and encyclopaedic plane. It was ‘a topic tied to Tübingen’ where Kasper had learned ‘to reflect more deeply on Schelling’s thought’.
As he himself writes in the Preface to his The Absolute in History, ‘the impulse to theological research on German idealism occurred to me on the basis of my familiarity with the rich theological world of the Tübingen School of the nineteenth century, into which I was introduced in my studies by my esteemed teachers, Prof. Dr. J. R. Geiselmann and Prof. Dr. F. X. Arnold.’
The commitment and the goal that Kasper set for himself were exceptional, since the literature on Schelling’s Philosophy of Revelation and on his system of positive philosophy in general were, and are still, ‘the object of contradictory judgments, mostly unfavourable’. Schelling himself, after all, in his lectures on the philosophy of revelation (Berlin 1841/42) quickly disappointed the expectations and hopes of those, above all theologians, who expected in his programme a synthesis of philosophy and religion. ‘The success of curiosity continued for some time. But the malicious campaigns of his opponents, […] the growing exhaustion among the students, the anachronism of a philosophy that went against the currents of the time […] put an end to this late glory.
For all this difficulty, the young Kasper took the task seriously and dedicated to the philosophy of the second Schelling ‘a well-researched work leading to the recognition not only of his theological value but also of his contemporary perspective.’ In particular, the thesis for his habilitation intends to respond to a dual task: 1) to offer a robust and close reconstruction of the text in the sense of historiographical faithfulness, but at the same time 2) elucidate the impulses, the stimuli, and the orientations which theology received in the Catholic Tübingen School from Schelling’s philosophy and which it can appropriate today for a renewal of theological method no longer content with the repetition of the traditional formulations of so-called baroque Scholasticism. In this way, the second Schelling came to be seen as a forerunner of the positive theology of our own time. In fact, Kasper approaches Schelling convinced that ‘problems and systems are open to each other. The question we must ask ourselves is whether the particular presentation and the form of Schelling’s thought can facilitate categories for the elucidation of aspects of Christianity which in the tradition expressed in a more scholastic manner have remained mostly obscured. This applies above all to the historicity of Christianity on which Schelling constantly insists. On this point, the possibility of an encounter with a biblically oriented theology could be greater than is generally admitted.’
The extent to which Kasper accentuates common aspects that were dear to the Tübingen School can already be seen from the title of his work: The Absolute in History according to Schelling’s late philosophy. It deals with a topic which ‘accompanies Schelling’s reflections throughout practically the entire arc of his development; it is essentially tied to the religious problematic with which the philosopher from Leonberg wrestled, in various ways, in all phases of his research. […] A profound metaphysical thinker such as Schelling, entirely captivated by the problem of the relationship between the infinite and the finite, between Absolute being and becoming in human consciousness, could not avoid being constantly confronted with the topic of history, specifically history in metaphysical perspective (first) and (subsequently) in that of positive theology.’
http://www.edizionistudium.it/libri/walter-kasper
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21692327.2017.1417149?fbclid=IwAR1DDbMEN36VhxLbqDtgh6SIaqUP3bsXsA3yxfR4wBxQiywb_2-nlctaSV0&journalCode=rjpt20
Hello Mr. Russo, I am pleased to meet you. I can't remember studying Schelling or Kasper views in my theology courses. I studied what Walter Elwell and Millard Erickson believe about theology and philosophy. Elwell calls Philosophy a discipline while he calls Biblical and Historical Theology branches of theology under Systematic Theology. Elwell believes that philosophy along with religion, ethics, and Apologetics are disciplines. Origen states that, "God gives the truth in single threads which we must weave into a finished texture." Weaving does incorporate an idea of integration, so I conclude that Historical and Biblical Theology can be integrated but Philosophy can not be integrated because it is not a branch but a discipline. I surmise however that although I may give philosophical points in my teachings, I usually try to base them on the Biblical history of the Bible. I usually always give a scripture if I share a philosophical point in a message. Elwell also states that Exegetical Theology is a Branch and not a discipline.
Faith Bays many thanks for your reply. What I posted is only a succint statement that will be published soon on the International Journal of Philosophy and Theology.
Dear Faith Bays
here my full text on Kasper and Schelling
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21692327.2017.1417149?fbclid=IwAR1DDbMEN36VhxLbqDtgh6SIaqUP3bsXsA3yxfR4wBxQiywb_2-nlctaSV0&journalCode=rjpt20
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Philosophy