本文選題：奧古斯丁 + 惡��； 參考：《西南大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：惡的問(wèn)題是基督教不可避免的問(wèn)題,很多非宗教徒以此來(lái)推翻宗教信仰、關(guān)于上帝的存在的問(wèn)題。奧古斯丁是中世紀(jì)基督教倫理學(xué)集大成者,為了確立基督教的正當(dāng)性,當(dāng)然奧古斯丁也不能避開(kāi)這個(gè)惡的問(wèn)題。奧古斯丁通過(guò)認(rèn)識(shí)自己來(lái)認(rèn)識(shí)上帝,他青少年時(shí)“為惡而惡”的經(jīng)歷讓他一身都在探尋惡的來(lái)源問(wèn)題。他開(kāi)始受到摩尼教的吸引認(rèn)為善惡是兩個(gè)對(duì)立的實(shí)體,人作惡的原因并不是自身。人只是因?yàn)槭艿搅藧旱膶?shí)體——黑暗之神的同志,才人會(huì)作惡人,所以人們不必為了自己的惡行負(fù)責(zé)任。奧古斯丁“為惡而惡”的經(jīng)歷也讓奧古斯丁對(duì)惡的問(wèn)題的思考會(huì)受到自身經(jīng)歷的影響,所以?shī)W古斯丁從自身的感受出發(fā)認(rèn)為摩尼教的善惡二元論與個(gè)人的道德直覺(jué)不符,使他感到迷惑,從而促使他重新尋求新的出路。之后的新柏拉圖主義讓奧古斯丁認(rèn)識(shí)到了另一種新的解釋。新柏拉圖主義認(rèn)為惡是善的缺乏,惡并非是實(shí)體,更是一種非存在。只有善才是存在,善完全的匱乏是惡,是不會(huì)存在的。所以并不是一種真正的罪惡。另一方面新柏拉圖主義認(rèn)為人類(lèi)作惡的原因是自由意志,人能自由的選擇行善還是作惡,亞當(dāng)?shù)膲櫬渚褪亲C明。奧古斯丁接受了新柏拉圖主義的思想,認(rèn)為自然的惡并不是真正的罪惡,人的惡行才是真正的罪。但奧古斯丁又認(rèn)為人類(lèi)在亞當(dāng)墮落之后并不能真正的選擇善,也不能憑借自身達(dá)到完滿,人類(lèi)只有通過(guò)接受上帝的恩典才能達(dá)到至善。本文第一章闡述了奧古斯丁罪責(zé)思想觀的變化,隨著奧古斯丁人生境遇的改變,以及奧古斯丁對(duì)惡?jiǎn)栴}的不斷反思與追問(wèn),奧古斯丁的思想也在不斷的接收著新的理論解說(shuō),奧古斯丁的理論也跟著從摩尼教到懷疑論,到新柏拉圖主義,再到恩典論階段。接著本文第二章解釋奧古斯丁認(rèn)為只有倫理的罪,即人通過(guò)自由意志自愿的選擇作惡的行為才能稱(chēng)之為罪惡。原罪就是亞當(dāng)犯的倫理的罪,是亞當(dāng)在行使自由意志時(shí)自愿的選擇背叛上帝的罪。亞當(dāng)所犯的罪受到了上帝的懲罰,這個(gè)懲罰通過(guò)性交一代一代遺傳給亞當(dāng)?shù)暮蟠�。第三章主要是�?xiě)有意之罪是意愿獨(dú)立的前提下自愿的不受他人的強(qiáng)迫的情況下運(yùn)用自己的自由選擇的能力作出的進(jìn)行惡行的決策所導(dǎo)致的罪惡,分析了奧古斯丁有意之罪與無(wú)意之罪,而人類(lèi)所犯的罪無(wú)論有意之罪還是無(wú)意之罪都是是有意之罪,是需要受到懲戒的,這是我們應(yīng)該負(fù)擔(dān)的道德責(zé)任。第四章闡述了奧古斯丁對(duì)罪惡的消除方法,即只能通過(guò)上帝的恩典的賦予,只能通過(guò)信、望、愛(ài)才能擁有幸福,達(dá)到至善。最后一章是對(duì)于奧古斯丁罪責(zé)倫理思想的一點(diǎn)見(jiàn)解,分別從歷史價(jià)值與理論缺陷以及啟示三方面進(jìn)行闡述。
[Abstract]:The evil problem is the inevitable problem of Christianity, which many non-religious people use to overthrow religious beliefs, about the existence of God. Augustine was the epitome of medieval Christian ethics. In order to establish the legitimacy of Christianity, Augustine could not avoid this evil problem. Augustine knew God by knowing himself, and his experience as a teenager made him explore the source of evil. He began to be attracted by Manichaeism that good and evil were two opposing entities, and that man did not do evil by himself. It is only because of the evil entity, the comrade of the Dark God, that man is a wicked man, so people should not be held responsible for their own wickedness. Augustine's experience of "evil for evil" also makes Augustine's thinking about evil problems affected by his own experience, so Augustine thinks from his own feelings that Manichaeism's dualism of good and evil is inconsistent with his personal moral intuition. Bewildered him, which prompted him to seek a new way out again. The Neo-Platonism that followed gave Augustine a new interpretation. Neo-Platonism believes that evil is the lack of good, evil is not entity, but also a non-existence. Only the good is there, and the perfect want of the good is evil and will not exist. So it is not a real sin. On the other hand, Neo-Platonism believes that the reason of human evil is free will, people can freely choose to do good or evil, Adam's depravity is proof. Augustine accepted the Neo-Platonism thought that the evil of nature is not the real sin, but the evil of man is the real sin. But Augustine believed that man could not choose the good after Adam's fall, nor could he achieve perfection by himself, but only by accepting the grace of God. The first chapter expounds the change of Augustine's concept of guilt and responsibility. With the change of Augustine's life circumstances and the constant reflection and questioning of the evil problem, Augustine's thought is also constantly receiving new theoretical explanation. Augustine's theory followed from Manichaeism to skepticism to Neoplatonism to grace. Then the second chapter explains Augustine's view that only the sin of ethics, that is, the behavior that man chooses to do evil voluntarily through free will, can be called evil. Original sin is the ethical sin of Adam, the sin that Adam voluntarily chose to betray God in the exercise of his free will. Adam's sins were punished by God and passed on to Adam's offspring through sexual intercourse. The third chapter mainly deals with the evil resulting from the decision of evil which is made with the ability of one's own free choice and without coercion of others on the condition that intentional crime is made on the condition that one wishes to be independent. This paper analyzes Augustine's intentional sin and unintentional sin, and the crimes committed by human beings, whether intentional or unintentional, are intentional sin and need to be punished, which is the moral responsibility that we should bear. The fourth chapter expounds Augustine's method of eliminating sin, that is, only through the gift of God's grace, only through faith, hope, love can have happiness and achieve the best. The last chapter is an opinion on Augustine's moral thought of guilt and responsibility, from three aspects of historical value, theoretical defects and enlightenment.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：B503.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 周媛媛;;“罪”與“惡”——淺談荀子“性惡論”與奧古斯丁“原罪論”[J];今日中國(guó)論壇;2013年19期

2 張翠云;;淺述奧古斯丁人性本善與罪責(zé)倫理思想[J];學(xué)理論;2013年27期

3 林季杉;;奧古斯丁論自由意志與德性之困難[J];道德與文明;2013年03期

4 高旭;;普羅提諾與奧古斯丁惡的思想比較研究[J];新西部(下旬.理論版);2011年05期

5 馬新龍;;奧古斯丁研究現(xiàn)狀述評(píng)[J];青年作家(中外文藝版);2010年07期

6 胡萬(wàn)年;;奧古斯丁自由意志概念的形而上維度——兼與康德自由意志的比較[J];安徽大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2008年05期

7 張麗娟;;原罪問(wèn)題的三個(gè)維度——對(duì)奧古斯丁的罪惡理論的解讀[J];呼倫貝爾學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2007年06期

8 周麗璇;;淺析奧古斯丁對(duì)惡的問(wèn)題的處理[J];云南大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2007年06期

9 趙林;;罪惡與自由意志——奧古斯丁“原罪”理論辨析[J];世界哲學(xué);2006年03期

10 周偉馳;現(xiàn)代奧古斯丁研究[J];現(xiàn)代哲學(xué);2005年03期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 鄧國(guó)元;王陽(yáng)明與奧古斯丁善惡觀比較[D];貴州師范大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號(hào)：1948005