Q-evankeliumi ja psykohistoria : Uuden testamentin eksegetiikan väitöskirja

In the course of my research for my thesis The Q Gospel and Psychohistory, I moved on from the accounts of the Cynics ideals to psychohistorical explanations. Studying the texts dealing with the Cynics and the Q Gospel, I was amazed by the fact that these texts actually portrayed people living in greater poverty than they had to. I paid particular attention to the fact that the Q Gospel was born in traumatising, warlike circumstances. Psychiatric traumatology helped me understand the Q Gospel and other ancient documents using historical approaches in a way that would comply with modern behavioural science. Even though I found some answers to the questions I had posed in my research, the main result of my research work is the justification of the question: Is it important to ask whether there is a connection between the ethos expressed by means of the religious language of the Q Gospel and the predominantly war-related life experiences typical to Palestine at the time. As has been convincingly revealed by a number of studies, traumatic events contribute to the development of psychotic experiences. I approached the problematic nature, significance and complexity of the ideal of poverty and this warlike environment by clarifying the history of psychohistorical literary research and the interpretative contexts associated with Sigmund Freud, Jacques Lacan and Melanie Klein. It is justifiable to question abnormal mentality, but there is no reliable return from the abnormal mentality described in any particular text to the only affecting factor. The popular research tendency based on the Oedipus complex is just as controversial as the Oedipus complex itself. The sociological frameworks concerning moral panics and political paranoia of an outer and inner danger fit quite well with the construction of the Q Gospel. Jerrold M. Post, M.D., Professor of Psychiatry, Political Psychology and Interna-tional Affairs at George Washington University, and founder and director of the Center for the Analysis of Personality and Political Behavior for the Central Intelligence Agency, has focused on the role played by charisma in the attracting of followers and detailed the psychological styles of a "charismatic" leader. He wrote the books Political Paranoia and Leaders and Their Followers in a Dangerous World: the Psychology of Political Behavior among others. His psychoanalytic vocabulary was useful for my understanding of the minds and motivations involved in the Q Gospel s formation. The Q sect began to live in a predestined future, with the reality and safety of this world having collapsed in both their experience and their fantasies. The deep and clear-cut divisions into good and evil that are expressed in the Q Gospel reveal the powerful nature of destructive impulses, envy and overwhelming anxiety. Responsible people who influenced the Q Gospel's origination tried to mount an ascetic defense against anxiety, denying their own needs, focusing their efforts on another objective (God s Kingdom) and a regressive, submissive earlier phase of development (a child s carelessness). This spiritual process was primarily an ecclesiastic or group-dynamical tactic to give support to the power of group leaders.

On the Modal Content of A Posteriori Necessities

This paper challenges the Kripkean interpretation of a posteriori necessities. It will be demonstrated, by an analysis of classic examples, that the modal content of supposed a posteriori necessities is more complicated than the Kripkean line suggests. We will see that further research is needed concerning the a priori principles underlying all a posteriori necessities. In the course of this analysis it will emerge that the modal content of a posteriori necessities can be best described in terms of a Finean conception of modality – by giving essences priority over modality. The upshot of this is that we might be able to establish the necessity of certain supposed a posteriori necessities by a priori means.

A New Definition of A Priori Knowledge: In Search of a Modal Basis

In this paper I will offer a novel understanding of a priori knowledge. My claim is that the sharp distinction that is usually made between a priori and a posteriori knowledge is groundless. It will be argued that a plausible understanding of a priori and a posteriori knowledge has to acknowledge that they are in a constant bootstrapping relationship. It is also crucial that we distinguish between a priori propositions that hold in the actual world and merely possible, non-actual a priori propositions, as we will see when considering cases like Euclidean geometry. Furthermore, contrary to what Kripke seems to suggest, a priori knowledge is intimately connected with metaphysical modality, indeed, grounded in it. The task of a priori reasoning, according to this account, is to delimit the space of metaphysically possible worlds in order for us to be able to determine what is actual.