Dialogue in the crisis of representation : realism and antirealism in the context of the conversation between theologians and quantum physicists in Göttingen 1949-1961

The aim of this study is to analyse the content of the interdisciplinary conversations in Göttingen between 1949 and 1961. The task is to compare models for describing reality presented by quantum physicists and theologians. Descriptions of reality indifferent disciplines are conditioned by the development of the concept of reality in philosophy, physics and theology. Our basic problem is stated in the question: How is it possible for the intramental image to match the external object?Cartesian knowledge presupposes clear and distinct ideas in the mind prior to observation resulting in a true correspondence between the observed object and the cogitative observing subject. The Kantian synthesis between rationalism and empiricism emphasises an extended character of representation. The human mind is not a passive receiver of external information, but is actively construing intramental representations of external reality in the epistemological process. Heidegger's aim was to reach a more primordial mode of understanding reality than what is possible in the Cartesian Subject-Object distinction. In Heidegger's philosophy, ontology as being-in-the-world is prior to knowledge concerning being. Ontology can be grasped only in the totality of being (Dasein), not only as an object of reflection and perception. According to Bohr, quantum mechanics introduces an irreducible loss in representation, which classically understood is a deficiency in knowledge. The conflicting aspects (particle and wave pictures) in our comprehension of physical reality, cannot be completely accommodated into an entire and coherent model of reality. What Bohr rejects is not realism, but the classical Einsteinian version of it. By the use of complementary descriptions, Bohr tries to save a fundamentally realistic position. The fundamental question in Barthian theology is the problem of God as an object of theological discourse. Dialectics is Barth¿s way to express knowledge of God avoiding a speculative theology and a human-centred religious self-consciousness. In Barthian theology, the human capacity for knowledge, independently of revelation, is insufficient to comprehend the being of God. Our knowledge of God is real knowledge in revelation and our words are made to correspond with the divine reality in an analogy of faith. The point of the Bultmannian demythologising programme was to claim the real existence of God beyond our faculties. We cannot simply define God as a human ideal of existence or a focus of values. The theological programme of Bultmann emphasised the notion that we can talk meaningfully of God only insofar as we have existential experience of his intervention. Common to all these twentieth century philosophical, physical and theological positions, is a form of anti-Cartesianism. Consequently, in regard to their epistemology, they can be labelled antirealist. This common insight also made it possible to find a common meeting point between the different disciplines. In this study, the different standpoints from all three areas and the conversations in Göttingen are analysed in the frameworkof realism/antirealism. One of the first tasks in the Göttingen conversations was to analyse the nature of the likeness between the complementary structures inquantum physics introduced by Niels Bohr and the dialectical forms in the Barthian doctrine of God. The reaction against epistemological Cartesianism, metaphysics of substance and deterministic description of reality was the common point of departure for theologians and physicists in the Göttingen discussions. In his complementarity, Bohr anticipated the crossing of traditional epistemic boundaries and the generalisation of epistemological strategies by introducing interpretative procedures across various disciplines.

Att tala om det osägbara : Nicolaus Cusanus cirkulära filosofi i verket De coniecturis med särskild hänsyn till Nelson Pikes tankar om unio mystica

In my dissertation called Speaking of the unsayable: The circular philosophy of Nicholas of Cusa in his work De coniecturis, I presuppose an internal (conceptual) relation between the personal experience of God of Nicholas of Cusa (1401-64) in 1438 and, on the other hand, his philosophy. I hence try to describe the precise character of this relation. Referring to the Norwegian scholars Egil Wyller and Viggo Rossvær, I assume that there is a circularity in Cusanus’ philosophy which appears as self-references (= a sentence refers to itself: A is explained by B and B is explained by A). Wyller finds three phases in the thought of Cusanus (1. De docta ignorantia I-III, 2. De coniecturis I-II, 3. all subsequent works). Rossvær finds it impossible to presuppose certain phases, as the philosophy of Cusanus continuously proceeds and remains open to new ideas. As Cusanus however treats his experience of God far more consciously in his second work De coniecturis than in De docta ignorantia, I find it possible to distinguish between the earlier Cusanus (De docta ignorantia including his earlier works) and the later Cusanus (De coniecturis, about 1444, as well as the following works). Cusanus creates a philosophy of language in outline expressed in De coniecturis, in which he presents two concepts of necessity, i.e. absolute necessity and logical, or reasonable, necessity. These are interrelated in the sense that the mind, or the self, logically affirms the absolute, or unsayable, necessity, which shows itself in the mind and which the mind affirms conjecturally. The endeavour conceptually to understand absolute necessity implies intuitive (or intellectual) contemplation, or vision (investigatio symbolica), in which the four mental unities (the absolute, the intellectual, the rational and the sensuous) work together according to the rules described in De coniecturis. In De coniecturis Cusanus obviously turns from a negative concept of the unsayable to a paradigmatic, which implies that he looks for principles of speaking of the unsayable and presents the idea of a divine language (divinaliter). However, he leaves this idea behind after De coniecturis, although he continues to create new concepts of the unsayable and incomprehensible. The intellectual language of absolute seeing is expressed in the subjunctive, i.e. conditionally. In order to describe the unsayable, Cusanus uses tautologies, the primary one of which is a concept of God, i.e. non aliud est non aliud quam non aliud (the non-other is non-other than the nonother). Wyller considers this the crucial point of the philosophy of Cusanus (De non aliud), described by the latter as the definition of definitions, i.e. the absolute definition. However, this definition is empty regarding its content. It demonstrates that God surpasses the coincidence of opposites (coincidentia oppositorum) and that he is “superunsayable” (superineffabilis), i.e. he is beyond what can be conceived or said. Nothing hence prevents us from speaking of him, provided that he is described as unsayable (= the paradigmatic concept of the unsayable). Here the mode of seeing is decisive. Cusanus in this context (and especially in his later literary production) uses modalities which concern possibility and necessity. His aim is to conduct any willing reader ahead on the way of life (philosophia mentalis). In De coniecturis II he describes the notion of human self-consciousness as the basis of spiritual mutuality in accordance with the humanistic tradition of his time. I mainly oppose the negatively determined concept of Christian mysticism presented by the German philosopher Kurt Flasch and prefer the presentation of Burkhard Mojsisch of the translogical and conjectural use of language in De coniecturis. In particular, I take account of the Scandinavian research, basically that of Johannes Sløk, Birgit H. Helander, Egil Wyller and Viggo Rossvær, who all consider the personal experience of God described by Cusanus a tacit precondition of his philosophy.

Den Äldsta – livet är ett tillägnande : en vårdvetenskaplig explorativ studie av ett meningsbärande budskap och en innerlig visdom

In the background of the thematic The Eldest – life is acquiring one finds both previews and myths. Wisdom belongs to these myths. The hermeneutical philosophy refers to thinking as o movement from myth to logos in a dialogical oneness. The research uncovers dimensions in the element wisdom as empowered. The experiences of older are saved for further learning and transformation to younger with reference to vulnerable situations where common regulations are no more usefull. The interest goes to an Eldest. The Eldest in the study is pictorial in accordance to the main literature in the study.The Eldest is etymological, fictive and symbolic: – a man who understands higher matters of life, even Gods holy matters. She will set the fulfillment of others as the highest endowment out of an innermost ethos and an innermost wisdom. The innermost is wisdom. The aim is to discover a meaningful message in life is acquiring. In order to see and to learn from the experiences the study aim to uncover the innermost, an innermost wisdom out of a caritative approach. This innermost is anticipated as a longing for unity and health in dayly matters and in a caring ability for the other. The main overstatement is: What will this most meaningfull and innermost by the Eldest out of a living in factual life mirrored in a caring perspective be? Two questions expired; what will the meaningful message in the acquiring be? What will the innermost wisdom in serving the good be? This message and its innermost wisdom will get an expanded meaning out of a caring sentence: Man who dare – seeing back with gratitude, seeing forward in confidence, seeing aside with love and upward in fate wear that dignity, that holiness and that mercy and empathy which belong to life in its basics. The persons attending the research are situated in two contexts. One group has roots in the Lutheran church and the other in a caring profession. The datamaterial is formed out of the usages from these persons, from the spoken (conversation) and the written word (a guestbook). The usages as particular and common are continually integrated in the leading caring sentence from the beginning of the study to the end. The usages stand by the methodological for the final message and wisdom and at the same they form the operative dimension in the study, the evident and the validity. The overarching methodological approach is in the hermeneutic philosophy in accordance with the abductive logic. The usages out of two research groups are most significant in this deductive, inductive and abductive strategy. The usages from the research groups are confronted with the caring sentence in dialogical spaces, halts. The meaning and the innermost searched for will be pictured through the abductive and hermeneutic interpretation and will stand for an articulation of and a successively expansion of meaning. A twine of horizons out of the entire dissemination, the deductive and the inductive, creates the result, as the final message as the ground for an understanding of an even more embracing meaning in an innermost wisdom. The identified bearing movement in the groups in accordance with the caring sentence goes for something higher, something higher than me, to the wellbeing of the other. A conclusion is made and a thesis is identified. This thesis is out from the usages: What can I do in a creating of this caritative? An antithesis is also identified, is a man able to look outside one own and go to something higher, something greater? The synthesis is articulated as a dialogical movement from something … to something higher. The bridge could be maturation, transcendence, the divine or wisdom. The statement finds its root in the attending groups but a difference is also identified. This higher matter is different. The contexts and their meaningfulness decide. A final statement is: learn to see man and her matters hold in life.