Kant’s turn to the subject has changed the epistemological conditions for theology. Four intellectual backgrounds of objections are examined: an Aristotelian and Thomistic teleological order of nature (1); Augustinianism based on original sin in which human agency is completely attributed to God’s grace (2); a Hegelian critique of the deontological conception of an “unconditional ought” which also puts Kant’s postulate of the existence of God into question (3); the combination in Radical Orthodoxy of a postmodern critique of the subject, an (...) Augustinian view of human nature, and a monistic understanding of the Trinity (4). Their different diagnoses why Kant’s work constitutes a cul-de-sac are contrasted with theological positions that welcome it as a watershed: its move from ontology to human subjectivity; from a biologically transmitted inescapable sin to a freedom for good and evil; from a strict reciprocity to an unlimited scope of ethics that is faced with the question of meaning; and from condemning the secular as “heretical” to defining it as the genuine space of the free human counterparts created by God, according to Duns Scotus’s late medieval theology which anticipates Kant’s concept of autonomy. The standard by which theologies are judged is how they do justice to the New Testament’s message of salvation by Jesus Christ. The Conclusion argues that Kant’s turn to freedom in its unconditionality and finitude has opened up a thought form in which the truth of the Gospel finds more adequate categories of understanding than in those of earlier eras. (shrink)

ABSTRACTThe aim of this article is to give an account of hope as it was understood by Józef Tischner a public intellectual and a prominent chaplain of the Polish Solidarity movement, which led to the fall of communism in Eastern Europe in 1989. The idea of hope was one of the basic ideas of the Solidarity movement, around which the daily experiences of its members were organized. The author thus offers insight into the intellectual history of the Eastern European dissidence (...) movement of the 1970s and 1980s. Referring to Tischner’s biography she describes some of the ways in which Western ideas crossed the Iron Courtain. Using the example of Tischner’s dialogue with, and critique of, Thomism, she explains how dissidents’ interest in phenomenology interacted with the heritage of European thought. The author shows that despite Tischner’s distancing himself from Aquinas’ thought, he remained under Aquinas’ influence, and his own ideas were not as different and incompatible with Thomism as is often believed. Given the rising interest in the question of the relation between hope and democracy today, the question of the meaning of hope is pending. (shrink)