What do you think?
Rate this book
Meister Eckhart: Philosopher of Christianity
Renowned philosopher Kurt Flasch offers a full-scale reappraisal of the life and legacy of Meister Eckhart, the medieval German theologian, philosopher, and alleged mystic who was active during the Avignon Papacy of the fourteenth century and was tried for heresy by Pope John XXII. Disputing his subject’s frequent characterization as a hero of a modern, syncretic spirituality, Flasch attempts to free Eckhart from the “Mystical Flood” by inviting his readers to think along with Eckhart in a careful rereading of his Latin and German works.
This fascinating study makes a powerful case for Eckhart’s position as an important philosopher of the time rather than a mystic and casts new light on an important figure of the Middle Ages whose ideas attracted considerable attention from such diverse modern thinkers as Schopenhauer, Vivekananda, Suzuki, Fromm, and Derrida.
This fascinating study makes a powerful case for Eckhart’s position as an important philosopher of the time rather than a mystic and casts new light on an important figure of the Middle Ages whose ideas attracted considerable attention from such diverse modern thinkers as Schopenhauer, Vivekananda, Suzuki, Fromm, and Derrida.
- GenresPhilosophyTheology
343 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2006
6 people are currently reading
118 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
June 18, 2023
A Theology of Language
Eckhart’s work is a sort of Christian Kabbalah or Sufism, an attempt to overcome the limitations and distortions of language through language itself. As Flasch is keen to point out, his work is often categorised, like Kabbalah and Sufism, as ‘mystical,’ a term originated as one of condemnation by critics of each movement. But Flasch’s re-categorisation of Eckhart as a philosopher, particularly as a philosopher of Christianity, seems to me anachronistic. And unlike Thomas Aquinas, for example, Eckhart is not trying to reconcile Classical Greek philosophy with contemporary Christian doctrine. Rather, I think, Eckhart was plowing a new intellectual field altogether, one more properly called the Theology of Language.
By a theology of language, I mean the relativisation language itself to that which is not language. For convenience I will refer to that which is not language as ‘beyond’ or ‘outside’ language or as, simply, ‘reality.’ In Christianity as well as its sister-religions, God is the ultimate reality, the source and sustainer of being itself. And while God ‘is,’ God is not a being. This paradox is the central linguistic difficulty of all theological discussion in Christianity, Islam and Judaism, which share the concept of divine transcendence. Each of these ‘religions of the book’ deal with the issue of their dependence on language in a distinctive way: Islam in Sufism, Judaism in Kabbalah, and Christianity in the type of idiosyncratic theology represented by Eckhart. All of these are considered marginal, often heretical, by ‘mainstream’ believers.*
Although different in important detail, all these approaches to the problem share a common theme: the possibility of a personal experience of a relationship with the divine which is non-linguistic. None of these approaches rejects language. On the contrary, all treat language in a hyperbolic way, as if it were the only thing in existence. In Sufism this means considering Signs, that is to say, language, only in relation to the Signifier, that is to say, God. In Kabbalah it means considering literally every letter, every ‘jot and tittle’ of sacred text as containing unlimited meaning. And in Christianity, it means an almost 20th century meditative deconstruction of core theological concepts.
The methodological core of these approaches is consistent: to squeeze language itself until it breaks, to exhaust language by the unrestrained interpretation of its meaning, indeed through the undermining of the foundations of dogma itself. Language is tortured in order to provoke its confession of inadequacy when dealing with the divine, that is to say, reality. To call this prison-break from language ‘mysticism’ is to denigrate its very sophisticated intellectual foundation. Not until philosophers of the 20th century like Wittgenstein and Heidegger (an admirer of Eckhart) articulated their aims could the linguistic genius of these medieval philosophies be recognised.
Many of Flash’s quotations from Eckhart’s sermons make my point explicitly. For example:
Human beings as adverbs of God - what a marvellously poetic idea! Eckhart then goes on to qualify this idea of adverbial mankind when he says:
Eckhart makes this wariness about language explicit as an ethical principle. We must detach ourselves from language even more decisively than from material things in order to be able to hear the divine Word:
As Eckhart makes clear elsewhere, the intellect (or soul, they are the same for Eckhart as our connection to God) is composed of ‘reason’ by which he means the faculty for giving meaning to the world, that is to say, language. His instruction is therefore radical: the intellect must not be abandoned but stripped of that which appears to constitute it. This is the enemy within, the words which live inside us and prevent us from allowing God to inhabit us. As in Kabbalah and Sufism, the way to achieve this state is not by starving the intellect of language but by over feeding it, by stuffing it like a Christmas goose until it regurgitates its entire contents - including, one presumes, all the increasingly codified doctrinal formulations of the Church.
It turns out, therefore, that Pope John XXII was absolutely correct in the 14th century when he called Eckhart “the Devil’s seed” and had him tried as a heretic. Anyone who messes with language and its character messes with the foundations of the religions of the book. Once language is recognised for what it is, a reality which masks a larger reality, official doctrines move from the realm of literal interpretation, to suggestive allegory, to quaint myth, and finally to the cultural junk pile of irrelevant legend. The pope’s anathema of Eckhart is still in effect, a tribute to the Church’s obstinacy as well as its continuing inability to cope with the subject of language.
One of the great ironies of religious history is that today’s evangelical Baptists and Pentecostalists don’t recognise their direct descent from Eckhart in their attempts to escape doctrine. They choose instead to clothe themselves in fundamentalist rhetoric and perpetrate the precise linguistic idolatry they had been formed to combat.
* It is also interesting to note that all of these attempts to deal with the problem of language-based beliefs developed in parallel during what Europeans call the Middle Ages. In a very important sense, the linguistic issue is what binds all three religions together into a single culture. In other words, it is not various monotheisms about which the three contend, but the issue of linguistic power. All three aim at an interpretive dominance within the shared culture. The religious content of that dominance is of marginal significance.
Eckhart’s work is a sort of Christian Kabbalah or Sufism, an attempt to overcome the limitations and distortions of language through language itself. As Flasch is keen to point out, his work is often categorised, like Kabbalah and Sufism, as ‘mystical,’ a term originated as one of condemnation by critics of each movement. But Flasch’s re-categorisation of Eckhart as a philosopher, particularly as a philosopher of Christianity, seems to me anachronistic. And unlike Thomas Aquinas, for example, Eckhart is not trying to reconcile Classical Greek philosophy with contemporary Christian doctrine. Rather, I think, Eckhart was plowing a new intellectual field altogether, one more properly called the Theology of Language.
By a theology of language, I mean the relativisation language itself to that which is not language. For convenience I will refer to that which is not language as ‘beyond’ or ‘outside’ language or as, simply, ‘reality.’ In Christianity as well as its sister-religions, God is the ultimate reality, the source and sustainer of being itself. And while God ‘is,’ God is not a being. This paradox is the central linguistic difficulty of all theological discussion in Christianity, Islam and Judaism, which share the concept of divine transcendence. Each of these ‘religions of the book’ deal with the issue of their dependence on language in a distinctive way: Islam in Sufism, Judaism in Kabbalah, and Christianity in the type of idiosyncratic theology represented by Eckhart. All of these are considered marginal, often heretical, by ‘mainstream’ believers.*
Although different in important detail, all these approaches to the problem share a common theme: the possibility of a personal experience of a relationship with the divine which is non-linguistic. None of these approaches rejects language. On the contrary, all treat language in a hyperbolic way, as if it were the only thing in existence. In Sufism this means considering Signs, that is to say, language, only in relation to the Signifier, that is to say, God. In Kabbalah it means considering literally every letter, every ‘jot and tittle’ of sacred text as containing unlimited meaning. And in Christianity, it means an almost 20th century meditative deconstruction of core theological concepts.
The methodological core of these approaches is consistent: to squeeze language itself until it breaks, to exhaust language by the unrestrained interpretation of its meaning, indeed through the undermining of the foundations of dogma itself. Language is tortured in order to provoke its confession of inadequacy when dealing with the divine, that is to say, reality. To call this prison-break from language ‘mysticism’ is to denigrate its very sophisticated intellectual foundation. Not until philosophers of the 20th century like Wittgenstein and Heidegger (an admirer of Eckhart) articulated their aims could the linguistic genius of these medieval philosophies be recognised.
Many of Flash’s quotations from Eckhart’s sermons make my point explicitly. For example:
“As a morning star in the middle of the mist. I am concerned here with the small word ‘quasi,’ which means ‘as.’ Schoolchildren call this a by-word [an adverb]. That is what I am concerned with in all of my sermons. The most proper terms that one can use for God are ‘Word’ and ‘Truth.’ God named himself a ‘word.’”
Human beings as adverbs of God - what a marvellously poetic idea! Eckhart then goes on to qualify this idea of adverbial mankind when he says:
“Whenever I preach, I habitually speak of detachment, and that man should become free from himself and all things. Second, that he should be reshaped into the unitary Good, which is God. And third, that he should think of the great nobility that God has placed in the soul so that man might thereby come to God in a marvelous way. Fourth, I speak of the purity of God’s nature—the glory that belongs to the divine nature is ineffable. God is a word, an unpronounced word.”That is, the Word, unlike our mere words, is not part of language. We therefore must be wary of our words, particularly sacred words. This is a re-statement of ancient Jewish prohibitions about verbalising the divine Tetragrammaton of YHWH. It is also a remarkable anticipation of the theology of Karl Barth in which words, even scriptural words, cannot in any way approximate the Word if God.
Eckhart makes this wariness about language explicit as an ethical principle. We must detach ourselves from language even more decisively than from material things in order to be able to hear the divine Word:
“I have already said it several times, and a great master says it as well: man is supposed to be detached in such a way from all things and all works, both internal and external ones, that he becomes God’s own site in which God could act.”This goes beyond mere negative theology. It involves a kenosis , a complete emptying of the intellect, even of what-God-is-not vocabulary of establishment theologians. But it is still decidedly theological , not philosophical. If anything, it is a theology which includes a subservient philosophy, not the reverse.
As Eckhart makes clear elsewhere, the intellect (or soul, they are the same for Eckhart as our connection to God) is composed of ‘reason’ by which he means the faculty for giving meaning to the world, that is to say, language. His instruction is therefore radical: the intellect must not be abandoned but stripped of that which appears to constitute it. This is the enemy within, the words which live inside us and prevent us from allowing God to inhabit us. As in Kabbalah and Sufism, the way to achieve this state is not by starving the intellect of language but by over feeding it, by stuffing it like a Christmas goose until it regurgitates its entire contents - including, one presumes, all the increasingly codified doctrinal formulations of the Church.
It turns out, therefore, that Pope John XXII was absolutely correct in the 14th century when he called Eckhart “the Devil’s seed” and had him tried as a heretic. Anyone who messes with language and its character messes with the foundations of the religions of the book. Once language is recognised for what it is, a reality which masks a larger reality, official doctrines move from the realm of literal interpretation, to suggestive allegory, to quaint myth, and finally to the cultural junk pile of irrelevant legend. The pope’s anathema of Eckhart is still in effect, a tribute to the Church’s obstinacy as well as its continuing inability to cope with the subject of language.
One of the great ironies of religious history is that today’s evangelical Baptists and Pentecostalists don’t recognise their direct descent from Eckhart in their attempts to escape doctrine. They choose instead to clothe themselves in fundamentalist rhetoric and perpetrate the precise linguistic idolatry they had been formed to combat.
* It is also interesting to note that all of these attempts to deal with the problem of language-based beliefs developed in parallel during what Europeans call the Middle Ages. In a very important sense, the linguistic issue is what binds all three religions together into a single culture. In other words, it is not various monotheisms about which the three contend, but the issue of linguistic power. All three aim at an interpretive dominance within the shared culture. The religious content of that dominance is of marginal significance.
December 8, 2022
Eckhart The Philosopher
Meister Eckhart (1260 -- 1328) receives substantial attention both in scholarly literature and in various forms of spiritual cultures. Eckhart is usually thought of under the vague term "mysticism". He is thought to have sought a personal, experiential approach to understanding God rather than an approach through logic and reason.
Kurt Flasch's book "Meister Eckhart: Philosopher of Christianity" takes issue with a mystical approach to Eckhart. Indeed, Flasch is commendably wary of broad terms, such as "mystic", "idealist", "realist" and the like that are frequently used of individual philosophers and that tend to conceal more than they reveal. Flasch argues that Eckhart is a philosopher in the broadest sense in that he tries to give reasons for what he believes particularly in the matters of religious convictions and in matters concerning the nature of reality. He finds little of mysticism in Eckhart. Flasch, a scholar of Eckhart for over 60 years is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Ruhr University, Bochum. Published in 2009, his book was translated into English in 2015 by Anne Schindel and Aaron Vanides.
Although I have read works by and about Eckhart over the years, Flasch's book was my first by a contemporary German scholar. The references in the book's detailed bibliography are almost entirely German. (I noticed only one title in English.) If for no other reason, this book is worthwhile in showing the nature of current German scholarship and thinking about Eckhart. The book gave me a different perspective on Eckhart from other works I have read.
Flasch's book gives an overview of Eckhart's life and thought in its historical context. The book for the most part proceeds chronologically with Eckart's life and writings, to the extent that the latter can be dated. The book is highly erudite in its discussions of the ancient and medieval philosophy that Eckhart knew and to which he responded. For all its difficulty, this book can be read by those with an interest in Eckhart who are not scholars.
Most admirers of Eckhart probably are most familiar with his German sermons. Flasch discusses the sermons in his book, but he places them in the context of Eckhart's Latin writings. These works are dry, difficult, and not known to most readers. The importance of the Latin writings is to show the continuity and nature of Eckhart's thought. He spoke and wrote as a philosopher giving reasons for his views. Some modern readers of Eckhart tend to downplay the characteristics of his thought that resulted in the Papal condemnation by John XXII in the year after Eckhart's death. Flasch argues that Eckhart's thinking was indeed contrary to that of the Church in many respects and that Eckhart, an outsider, was trying to formulate a new understanding and philosophical basis for Christianity. To simplify greatly, Eckhart's thought was based upon his view of mind and of his understanding of reality. Eckhart saw reality primarily in universals, such as Being, Truth, Justice rather than in particulars. He rejected the philosophical nominalism that sees reality as consisting of individuals that would come to the fore shortly after his death.
Flasch takes the reader through some of Eckhart's Latin writings, including his projected long work the "Opus triparitum" which was never completed, and some of Eckhart's scriptural commentaries, including his studies of Genesis, the Wisdom literature, and Exodus. Flasch gives great emphasis to Eckhart's commentary on the logos in the Gospel of John. The studies of Eckhart's Latin writings is meant to dispel the view of Eckhart as a mystic and to show the concept of rationality underlying his thought.
Flasch discusses the German sermons but he wisely limits his focus to a close reading of passages in two works, including Eckhart's discussion of the story of Mary and Martha from the Gospel of Luke. He also dispels certain views of Eckhart's sermons that are frequently heard and that I in fact thought to be true -- such as the belief that Eckhart's sermons are only transcriptions by others of what Eckhart said and the belief that Eckhart preached primarily to women.
Together with the commentary on John the work of Eckhart's that receives most attention is the German "Book of Divine Consolation" with Flasch dates later in Eckhart's career than is sometimes done in earlier scholarship. He sees this book as setting out Eckhart's thought in a rigorous way with argument and as dispelling notions of Eckhart as primarily a mystic.
The final sections of the book discuss Eckhart's trial and defense together with the condemnatory bull issued by the pope.
This is an outstanding study of Eckhart that helped me see him differently and I think more truly than I had done. Readers with a serious interest in Eckhart will want to get to know Flasch's study.
Robin Friedman
Meister Eckhart (1260 -- 1328) receives substantial attention both in scholarly literature and in various forms of spiritual cultures. Eckhart is usually thought of under the vague term "mysticism". He is thought to have sought a personal, experiential approach to understanding God rather than an approach through logic and reason.
Kurt Flasch's book "Meister Eckhart: Philosopher of Christianity" takes issue with a mystical approach to Eckhart. Indeed, Flasch is commendably wary of broad terms, such as "mystic", "idealist", "realist" and the like that are frequently used of individual philosophers and that tend to conceal more than they reveal. Flasch argues that Eckhart is a philosopher in the broadest sense in that he tries to give reasons for what he believes particularly in the matters of religious convictions and in matters concerning the nature of reality. He finds little of mysticism in Eckhart. Flasch, a scholar of Eckhart for over 60 years is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Ruhr University, Bochum. Published in 2009, his book was translated into English in 2015 by Anne Schindel and Aaron Vanides.
Although I have read works by and about Eckhart over the years, Flasch's book was my first by a contemporary German scholar. The references in the book's detailed bibliography are almost entirely German. (I noticed only one title in English.) If for no other reason, this book is worthwhile in showing the nature of current German scholarship and thinking about Eckhart. The book gave me a different perspective on Eckhart from other works I have read.
Flasch's book gives an overview of Eckhart's life and thought in its historical context. The book for the most part proceeds chronologically with Eckart's life and writings, to the extent that the latter can be dated. The book is highly erudite in its discussions of the ancient and medieval philosophy that Eckhart knew and to which he responded. For all its difficulty, this book can be read by those with an interest in Eckhart who are not scholars.
Most admirers of Eckhart probably are most familiar with his German sermons. Flasch discusses the sermons in his book, but he places them in the context of Eckhart's Latin writings. These works are dry, difficult, and not known to most readers. The importance of the Latin writings is to show the continuity and nature of Eckhart's thought. He spoke and wrote as a philosopher giving reasons for his views. Some modern readers of Eckhart tend to downplay the characteristics of his thought that resulted in the Papal condemnation by John XXII in the year after Eckhart's death. Flasch argues that Eckhart's thinking was indeed contrary to that of the Church in many respects and that Eckhart, an outsider, was trying to formulate a new understanding and philosophical basis for Christianity. To simplify greatly, Eckhart's thought was based upon his view of mind and of his understanding of reality. Eckhart saw reality primarily in universals, such as Being, Truth, Justice rather than in particulars. He rejected the philosophical nominalism that sees reality as consisting of individuals that would come to the fore shortly after his death.
Flasch takes the reader through some of Eckhart's Latin writings, including his projected long work the "Opus triparitum" which was never completed, and some of Eckhart's scriptural commentaries, including his studies of Genesis, the Wisdom literature, and Exodus. Flasch gives great emphasis to Eckhart's commentary on the logos in the Gospel of John. The studies of Eckhart's Latin writings is meant to dispel the view of Eckhart as a mystic and to show the concept of rationality underlying his thought.
Flasch discusses the German sermons but he wisely limits his focus to a close reading of passages in two works, including Eckhart's discussion of the story of Mary and Martha from the Gospel of Luke. He also dispels certain views of Eckhart's sermons that are frequently heard and that I in fact thought to be true -- such as the belief that Eckhart's sermons are only transcriptions by others of what Eckhart said and the belief that Eckhart preached primarily to women.
Together with the commentary on John the work of Eckhart's that receives most attention is the German "Book of Divine Consolation" with Flasch dates later in Eckhart's career than is sometimes done in earlier scholarship. He sees this book as setting out Eckhart's thought in a rigorous way with argument and as dispelling notions of Eckhart as primarily a mystic.
The final sections of the book discuss Eckhart's trial and defense together with the condemnatory bull issued by the pope.
This is an outstanding study of Eckhart that helped me see him differently and I think more truly than I had done. Readers with a serious interest in Eckhart will want to get to know Flasch's study.
Robin Friedman
January 27, 2024
Before picking this book, it is advised that you brush up on your: Aristotle, Proclus, Averroes, St. Augustine, Peter Lombard, St. Bonaventure & St. Thomas; this work—although it does a wonderful job breaking down the complex, scholastic worldview which Eckhart’s Latin texts work within—requires prior knowledge in order to not be swept away by subtle distinctions. This sort of work when read in ignorance of medieval philosophy, I’d liken to being drawn into the ebbs and flows of a vortex. One moment you’ll be agreeing with Eckhart, the next with St. Augustine, the next with St. Thomas and then St. Paul. So although this book is a very, very poor introduction to Eckhart’s thought (when viewed from the perspective of someone with no background in the Medieval cosmos other than “feudalism and Papacy,”) it is an interesting counterbalance to the vast majority of Eckhart scholarship.
The biggest gripe with this work I have is that the author holds to the same naïvely, dogmatic distinction as the Neo-scholastics between “philosophy” and “mystical theology.” Flasch will make a concerted effort at times, for instance when commenting on Eckhart’s Sermon 86, to show that explanations which are perfectly “mystical” are in fact simply meditations derived from contradicting the budding Thomistic tradition of the Dominicans. Often, Flasch’s uncritical bend towards rationalizing Eckhart’s thought pastes over obvious spiritual profundities simply because it was derived from Anaxagoras. This is why studying the Greeks is so important: the commonplace view that everyone post-Socrates was “anti-cultic” and “hyper-rational” is as recent an innovation as the fawning over St. Thomas as the highest embodiment of Catholicism. The Greeks invariably viewed philosophy as an authentic, personal religious practice—whence Parmenides’s invocation of the goddess Reason, or the idea of “theurgy” in the Late Platonists. However, this prejudicial hostility against the rational and the “suprarational” being mixed aside, this book is an excellent positioning of Meister Eckhart as a philosopher participating in the wider debates which would later draw Pico, Ficino, Savonarola, and Bruno.
The biggest gripe with this work I have is that the author holds to the same naïvely, dogmatic distinction as the Neo-scholastics between “philosophy” and “mystical theology.” Flasch will make a concerted effort at times, for instance when commenting on Eckhart’s Sermon 86, to show that explanations which are perfectly “mystical” are in fact simply meditations derived from contradicting the budding Thomistic tradition of the Dominicans. Often, Flasch’s uncritical bend towards rationalizing Eckhart’s thought pastes over obvious spiritual profundities simply because it was derived from Anaxagoras. This is why studying the Greeks is so important: the commonplace view that everyone post-Socrates was “anti-cultic” and “hyper-rational” is as recent an innovation as the fawning over St. Thomas as the highest embodiment of Catholicism. The Greeks invariably viewed philosophy as an authentic, personal religious practice—whence Parmenides’s invocation of the goddess Reason, or the idea of “theurgy” in the Late Platonists. However, this prejudicial hostility against the rational and the “suprarational” being mixed aside, this book is an excellent positioning of Meister Eckhart as a philosopher participating in the wider debates which would later draw Pico, Ficino, Savonarola, and Bruno.
June 10, 2020
Az ember hajlamos arra, hogy kategorizáljon, beskatulyázzon dolgokat, és olyan jelzőkkel bélyegezze meg azokat, melyek az idő múltával bár elavultnak tekintendők, mégis fennmaradnak a köztudásban és miattuk a lényeg elveszik. Kurt Flaschban épp azt tartom megnyerőnek, hogy törekszik Eckhartot mint Eckhartot vizsgálni és nem mint Eckhartot, a misztikust; Eckhartot, az újplatonistát; Eckhartot, a tomistát vagy épp antitomistát; Eckhartot, az averroistát vagy avicennistát vagy Maimonidész gondolkodásának továbbvivőjét. Ezekben a jelzőkben mind van igazság, nem állítom, de túlságosan merevek, amik elfedik Eckhart tanításainak a lényegét és a bennük rejlő igazságot. Mindez csak elcsökevényesült felszín, mert Eckhart nem volt sem misztikus, sem újplatonista, sem tomista, sem antitomista, sem averroista, sem semmi más, hanem önmagában állva Eckhart volt: az az Eckhart, aki nemcsak a latint használta, hanem a németet mint a nép nyelvét közvetítő közegnek; akit eretnek tanítónak tartottak és valamiféle elvont filozófiát hirdető egyénnek, ami nem fért össze korának merev tomista skolasztikus mércéjével, amely nemcsak Aquinói Szent Tamásra, de Arisztotelészre is támaszkodik.
Az izmus mánia; olyan rögeszme, ami maga alá gyűjt a saját szempontjainak megfelelően mindent és mindenkit, és eluralkodik a köz igazsága felett. Tulajdonképpen a hátam borsódzik bármiféle -ista jellemzéstől, mert az igazságot nem hogy nem fedi le, legjobb esetben is csak nyomokban tartalmazza. Lehet, van, aki ezzel nem ért egyet - nem szeretek sem tudományos, sem áltudományos lenni, és éppen ezért tetszik Kurt Flasch könyve, mert ő sem akar tudományos jelleggel, ideológiák hatása alatt bármi újat állítani Eckhartról - csak Eckhartot vizsgálni, önmagában állva, érintkezve más gondolkodókkal, kimutathatók bizonyos hatások, de az egyén attól egyedi, hogy különálló és nem kell tudományos kontextus ahhoz, hogy rájöjjön magától arra, amire más is rájött ő előtte, vagy nem kell hogy őt felhasználják ahhoz, hogy más ugyanolyan úton eljusson az igazsághoz. Eckhart is valamiféle ilyen egyéni utat hirdetett: te magad kell eljuss lélekben az Istenhez, hogy aztán úgy tudj látni, ahogy ő. De nem istenné válsz a szó szoros értelmében, hiszen ember vagy - csak az isteni részed, az időn és téren és teremtésen kívüli lelked visszaemelkedik az Eredetéhez.
A világnak több ilyen értelmezésre lenne szüksége.
Az izmus mánia; olyan rögeszme, ami maga alá gyűjt a saját szempontjainak megfelelően mindent és mindenkit, és eluralkodik a köz igazsága felett. Tulajdonképpen a hátam borsódzik bármiféle -ista jellemzéstől, mert az igazságot nem hogy nem fedi le, legjobb esetben is csak nyomokban tartalmazza. Lehet, van, aki ezzel nem ért egyet - nem szeretek sem tudományos, sem áltudományos lenni, és éppen ezért tetszik Kurt Flasch könyve, mert ő sem akar tudományos jelleggel, ideológiák hatása alatt bármi újat állítani Eckhartról - csak Eckhartot vizsgálni, önmagában állva, érintkezve más gondolkodókkal, kimutathatók bizonyos hatások, de az egyén attól egyedi, hogy különálló és nem kell tudományos kontextus ahhoz, hogy rájöjjön magától arra, amire más is rájött ő előtte, vagy nem kell hogy őt felhasználják ahhoz, hogy más ugyanolyan úton eljusson az igazsághoz. Eckhart is valamiféle ilyen egyéni utat hirdetett: te magad kell eljuss lélekben az Istenhez, hogy aztán úgy tudj látni, ahogy ő. De nem istenné válsz a szó szoros értelmében, hiszen ember vagy - csak az isteni részed, az időn és téren és teremtésen kívüli lelked visszaemelkedik az Eredetéhez.
A világnak több ilyen értelmezésre lenne szüksége.
December 8, 2016
Kurt Flasch's book is a brilliant analysis of Meister Eckhart's philosophy; however, this is an extremely difficult book and the comparisons between Meister Eckhart's philosophy with that of St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and other spiritual figures require a scholarly command of their respective philosophies and the history of the time. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the author provides answers to questions that have not been addressed in other books. Also, far be it for me to question the academic expertise of the author, in my opinion, Meister Eckhart must have had some mystical revelation or spiritual insight to arrive at his philosophical conclusions as his insights extend far beyond any possible intellectual analysis. Also, I believe Meister Eckhart was hampered by the narrow and rigid views of the Church during this time and was forced to temper his writing. As we know, Meister Eckhart was most nearly executed for his views which were seen as contrary to Church doctrine. As aforementioned, this is a very difficult book but well worth the read which I would highly recommend
October 28, 2018
მაისტერ ეკჰარტი პირველი გერმანელი ვარსკვლავია - არც მეტი და არც ნაკლები. მისი გავლენა შეიმჩნევა ჰეგელზე, ჰაიდეგერზე, მუზილზე... და ა.შ. და ა.შ. და თავად , რაც ძალიან საინტერესო და ორიგინალურია, ავიცენას ფილოსოფიის გავლენას განიცდის. როგორი ამბავია ?! ქრისტიანი თეოლოგი აკრიტიკებს თომა აქვინელს და აფასებს აბუ ალი ალ სინას . ( სწორედ ამიტომ, კურტ ფლაშის მეორე წიგნს ეკჰარტის შესახებ ჰქვია >Die Geburt der 'Deutschen Mystik' aus dem Geist der arabischen Philosophie < - გერმანული მისტიკის დაბადება არაბული ფილოსოფიის სულიდან ).
ავტორზე ძალზე მოკლედ რომ ვთქვა - კურტ ფლაში თავადაა შუა საუკუნეების ფილოსოფიის მაისტერი :) კარგი წიგნია ნამეტნავად !
ავტორზე ძალზე მოკლედ რომ ვთქვა - კურტ ფლაში თავადაა შუა საუკუნეების ფილოსოფიის მაისტერი :) კარგი წიგნია ნამეტნავად !
May 20, 2024
This book is way over my ability to comprehend. Unless the reader is a theologian, philosopher, or expert on Meister Eckhart, I do not recommend this book. Unless you stand in need of an exercise in humility, in which case, I say have at it.
August 10, 2021
F*ck Kurt Flasch tbh
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews