دربارۀ دین: سخنانی با تحقیرکنندگان فرهیخته‌اش

by Friedrich Schleiermacher, محمدابراهیم باسط (Translator)

فریدریش شلایرماخر (۱۸۳۴-۱۷۶۸) در این کتاب می‌کوشد نشان دهد که دین قابل تحویل به متافیزیک یا اخلاق نیست؛ دین نه دربارهٔ موجود برین است، نه دربارهٔ خیر برین؛ دین نه به شناختن مربوط می‌شود، نه به عمل کردن. دین به احساس مربوط می‌شود، اما احساسی بسیار خاص که در اثر شهود بی‌واسطهٔ امر بی‌کرانه ایجاد می‌شود. هر انسانی به سبب موقعیت یکتایی که در جهان و در نتیجه نسبت به امر بی‌کرانه دارد، احساس متفاوتی نیز بر اثر این شهود در او ایجاد می‌شود و به این ترتیب دین‌داری هرکس خاص خود او می‌شود؛ هرچند برخی شهودها از امر بی‌کرانه چنان قدرت و نفوذی می‌یابند که می‌توانند افراد زیادی را حول خود جمع کنند و این‌ها شهودهای بنیان‌گذاران ادیان بزرگ از امر بی‌کرانه هستند.
دربارهٔ دین نخستین کتاب شلایرماخر است و اولین بار در ۱۷۹۹ منتشر شده است. زمانی که او در حلقهٔ رمانتیک‌های برلین بود، و همین باعث شده است این کتاب هم آکنده از لحنی رمانتیک باشد و هم از مهم‌ترین آثار برای شناخت جریان رمانتیسیسم به شمار آید.
فریدریش شلایرماخر را بنیان‌گذار دانش هرمنوتیک، مفهوم تجربهٔ دین، جریان الهیات لیبرال مدرن، و رشتهٔ دین‌شناسی می‌دانند و این کتابی است که بذر اولیهٔ همهٔ این ایده‌ها را کمابیش می‌توان در آن یافت.

Genres: Philosophy, Theology, Religion, Nonfiction, Christianity, German Literature, Classics

306 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1799

About the author

Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher was a German theologian and philosopher known for his impressive attempt to reconcile the criticisms of the Enlightenment with traditional Protestant orthodoxy. He also became influential in the evolution of Higher Criticism. His work also forms part of the foundation of the modern field of hermeneutics. Because of his profound impact on subsequent Christian thought, he is often called the "Father of Modern Protestant Theology", and is considered an early leader in liberal Christianity. The neo-orthodoxy movement of the twentieth century, typically (though not without challenge) seen to be spearheaded by Karl Barth, was in many ways an attempt to challenge his influence.

Reviews

[فؤاد · Rating 4 out of 5]

پروژهٔ جذاب اشلایرماخر، که در دوران مدرنیته که دیگه دین اعتبار عقلانی خودش رو از دست داده بود، تلاش کرد با تغییر مبنای دین از عقل و اخلاق به «احساس» دین رو از بحران مدرنیته نجات بده. اشلایرماخر اساس دین رو احساس وابستگی به امر مطلق می‌دونه، احساسی بیان‌ناشدنی که در مواجهه با عظمت و شگفتی جهان بهمون دست می‌ده. اما ما به ناچار این احساس رو با زبان و مفاهیمی که فرهنگ بهمون می‌ده صورت‌بندی می‌کنیم و ادیان مختلف از این جا پدید میان.

[Fatemeh · Rating 3 out of 5]

خوندن کتاب فایده‌ای که فکرش رو می‌کردم نداشت. اون صحبتهای مقدمه که بابا بیاید من نمیخوام عین بقیه حرف بزنم گولم زد. 🚶🏻‍♀️

[Ali · Rating 3 out of 5]

کتاب رو شلایرماخر که یک کشیش و در عین حال استاد دانشگاه هست خطاب به دوستان رمانتیکش می‌نویسه که از دید شلایرماخر دین رو تحقیر می‌کردن و سعی در جلب اون‌ها به امر دینی داره. پیش فرض کتاب وجود امر بی‌کران و وحدت جهان هست. اصل دین رو تجربه و شهود بی‌کرانگی می‌دونه و بر جداسازی دین از اخلاق و فلسفه تاکید داره. در عین حال وجود نهاد کلیسا و دین مثبت و تشریعی رو هم مفید می‌دونه و دین طبیعی رو نقد می‌کنه که اساسا بی‌بو و بی‌خاصیت هست. همین اصل قرار دادن شهود دینی زمینه رو برای پذیرش تجربه‌های مختلف دینی فراهم می‌کنه و به نوعی همزیستی ادیان و قرائت‌های مختلف دینی رو فراهم می‌کنه.

نقدی که به نظر من به کتاب وارد هست این هست که تضاد شهودها رو در نظر نمی‌گیره و فرض می‌گیره که دو نفر با دو شهود مختلف هم دیگه رو با گفتگو می‌تونن تکمیل بکنن و به وحدتی برسن. در حالی که در عمل معمولا شهودها بسیار جنبه‌ی یقین‌آوری دارند و بر حقانیت خودشون تاکید می‌کنن و اساسا جایی برای گفتگو باقی نمی‌ذارن. از طرف دیگه با اصل و ذات‌گرایی در پدیده‌ای به نام دین زمینه رو برای بنیادگرایی و توابعش رو فراهم می‌کنه. هیچ توضیحی هم ارائه نمی‌ده که از اساس این انحرافات و اضافات به دین از نظر اون چطور به دین اضافه شدن.

[Jonathan Norton · Rating 2 out of 5]

The Ur-text for much modern theology, these 1799 essays attempt to promote the idea of religion to an elite audience versed in the very latest transcendental philosophy. Religion isn't what they thought it was, it turns out to a intuitive sensibility for the relation of the finite to the infinite cosmos, and as such may be manifest throughout culture and in different religions. FS is happiest when describing non-historical idealised religious communities, less successful in connecting these ideas with actual-existing "positive religions", which seem to be incurably corrupted yet nevertheless objects of his recommendation. It's obscure how notions of *authority* can fit in his model, if true religion is a simple intuition by a pure heart - if there is to be any worldly church or community at all, then it should be a form of Quakerism or something like Tolstoyism, nothing like the conventional state-sanctioned faith. Underlying all this are unexamined prejudices whereby non-christians are merely superstitious and barely worth notice, and the Jews and Catholics not much better (though of course they can all be converted to the light of true Protestantism). Deism is criticised for being thin gruel compared to the positive religion it despises, yet his own conception (which was explicitly distinguished from any metaphysics or morality) would be equally lacking. There is a switch going on here: "religion" is being used both in a newly-invented sense, and also passed off as meaning the traditional entity, whose prestige is to be transfered to it. It's the game that Giles Fraser and modern liberal Anglican cohorts play as well, and it started here, with a bunch of other ideas that appear in Hegel and Kierkegaard.

[Ehab mohamed · Rating 3 out of 5]

الترجمة سيئة إلى أبعد حد، بعد أن بدأته بالعربية ووصمت نفسي بعدم الفهم والغباء لعدم قدرتي على فهم الطلاسم المكتوبة، قلت في نفسي مستبعدا أن أفهم شيء أيضا - فلألجأ للترجمة الإنجليزية التي ترجم عنها المترجم والتي قدرتي على القراءة فيها محدودة بعكس العربية!
ولكن فوجئت بأن الترجمة الإنجليزية أسلس وأسهل وأوضح دون أي فذلكة ... وبالطبع لم يخل النص من غموض بسبب طبيعة الموضوع نفسه.

ومن الغريب أن أكثر الكتب الفلسفية التي بدأتها بالعربية مؤخرا ولم استطع فهمها، عندما لجأت إلى الإنجليزية وبالرغم من قدراتي المحدودة فيها وجدتها واضحة وسلسة وممتعة.

أعتقد أن سوء سمعة الفلسفة بأنها صعبة الفهم ناشيء أصلا من سوء الترجمة، وهذا السوء متعمد في أغلبه! ... بمعنى أن المترجم العربي يتعامل مع النص الفلسفي على أنه للصفوة فقط وأن فهمه لا بد أن يكون صعبا ومقصورا على فئة معينة ويتعمد في ترجمته اختيار أصعب التراكيب اللغوية وأغمض الكلمات، بل يلجأ إلى نقل مصطلحات فلسفية بحروف عربية دون ترجمتها لكي يبدو الموضوع صعبا وفلسفيا ومهما فعليه في رأيه أن يكون معقدا وغامضا ومبهما.

فمثلا يصر بعض المترجمين على استخدام كلمة ( الإمبريقية) ترجمة ل (empirical) وفي الوقت التي تثير فيه الكلمة الإنحليزية تصورات معينة في ذهن القاريء الانجليزي فإن نقلها بحروف عربية لا يثير أي تصورات ذهنية في ذهن القاريء العربي لأنها ليست من لغته ولا تحمل أي دلالة وكتابتها بحروف عربية لم يترجمها، ماذا سيحدث لو ترجمها (التجريبية)! فكلمة تجريبة تثير تصورات ذهنية وتحمل دلالتها اللغوية بالنسبة للقاريء العربي مما لا يجعله يلجأ لتفسيرات آخرى.

لماذا الإصرار على ترجمة ( totalitarian ) ب(التوتاليرية)! .. هل عقمت اللغة العربية التي نتباهي بأنها أكثر لغات العالم مفردات مقابل لتلك الكلمة، هل سينهد الكون لو ترجمت (شمولية).

وبالمثل لا أجد مبرر تماما لترجمة كلمة (sociology) ب(سوسولوجيا) فهذا نوع من الجهل أو الاستسهال أو بغرض تعجيز القاريء فكلمة( sociology ) بالنسبة للقاريء الانجليزي تثير في ذهنه تصورات معينة وتحمل دلالتها فالكلمة من مقطعين (socio) بمعنى ( اجتماع ) و (ology) بمعنى (علم) فعندما تأتي الكلمة أمامه فلا يحتاج إلى تفسيرات إضافية لأن الدلالة في الحروف المكتوبة، لكن بالله عليكم ماذا تثير كلمة ( سوسولوجيا) في ذهن قاريء عربي يتعرض للفظ لأول مرة! ... لا شيء على الإطلاق، لا دلالة، لا معنى، لأن الكلمة لم تترجم بل حولت حروفها للعربية فقط!. ولكن بدلها ب(علم إجتماع) تجد كل التصورات الذهنية والدلالات حاضرة في عقلك.

فيا سيدي المترجم نقل المصطلح الانجليزي كما هو بحروف عربية ليس ترجمة، ليس ترجمة، ليس ترجمة طالما توفرت المفردات الملائمة لها في العربية.

فترجمة (metaphysics) ليست (ميتافيزيقا) بل (ما وراء الطبيعة) فالكلمة من مقطعين أيضا بالإنجليزية وتثير تصورات ذهنية معينة في ذهن القارئ بالإنجليزية ويجيب أن تثير نفس التصورات في ذهن القارئ العربي ولكن بلغته العربية.

وترجمة ( epistemology ) والله العظيم ليست (ابيستمولوجيا) وترجمة ( phemenology) ليست (فيمينولوجيا) وترجمة ( psychology) ليست (سيكولوجيا) وترجمة المقطع ( ology ) أصلا ليست (لوجيا) وترجمة (transcedental) ليس (ترانسيدينتالي)... المصيبة الكبرى أن حتى كثير من مثقفينا ارتضوا هذه الترجمات بل وأصبحت معتمدة ورسمية ولا غضاضة فيها، فأصبحت كلمات مثل سوسولجيا وسيكولوجيا وابيستمولوجيا وميتفيزيقا وامبريقية ودوجمائية وترنسيندتالية وفيمينولوجيا وبيولوجيا ولائكية إلى حد أني وجدت مترجم يترجم (paradoxical) بارادوكسية! .... هو في إيه يا جدعان هي كلمة (مفارقة) زعلتكم في حاجة!

الكارثة أن بعض من يهرف بمثل هذه التعاويذ والطلاسم التي لا تحمل أي دلالات عربية وتحتاج حرفيا إلى ترجمة بعد الترجمة يظنون أنهم أكثر ثقافة وعلما وأن من لا يعلم دلالاتها ليس مثقفا وجاهل، بل أجزم أن بعض القراء صاروا يستبطنون بدون وعي أن كتب الفلسفة وغيرها من العلوم الإنسانية والاجتماعية صعبة ومستحيلة الفهم وأنها لا بد أن تكون مليئة بالمصطلحات التعجيزية، وإذا وجدوا كتابا مترجما بلغة واضحة ومصطلحات عربية واضحة ظنوه كتابا سيئا ولا يحمل فائدة، بل أن بعض القراء من كثرة ما يلاقي من تعاويذ لا تحمل أي معنى بدأ يلقي باللوم على فهمه ويصف نفسه بالغباء وهذا ما فعلته كثيرا مع نفسي ظنا مني أن القصور لا بد أن يكون في أنا، مع أن كل المشكلة هي أن المترجم نفسه صار يستبطن بدون وعي أن الفلسفة صعبة فلابد أن تكون مصطلحاتي معقدة وتراكيبي صعبة حتى وإن كان النص الأصلي سلس ولا يحمل أي تعقيد.

كل لغة تختلف عن الآخرى في اشتقاقاتها وليس فرضا أننا إذا عجزنا عن نقل مصطلح في كلمة واحدة أن لا نترجمه بل ننقله بحروف عربية، فاللغة الإنحليزية يسهل فيها دمج مقطعين لتكوين كلمة واحدة وما يجب أن نفعله هو ترجمة الكلمة إن وجب بكلمتين لأن الكلمة الإنحليزية أصلا مصكوكة من كلمتين، فهذا ليس تغيير في النص بل حتى ليس ترجمة شارحة بل ترجمة فقط.


طيب، ما هو سبب كلامي السابق كله! السبب هو أنني بدأت في أكثر من كتاب في الشهور الأخيرة مترجمة بالعربية ووجدتها مليئة بالطلاسم والصعوبات إلى حد ان اتهمت نفسي بالغباء وباللجوء إلى ترجمة إنجليزية معتمدة أو النص الانجليزي إذا كان أصلا إنجليزيا، لم أواجه إلا صعوبات القراءة بلغة غير اللغة الأم فقط أو صعوبات خاصة بغموض في النص نفسه خاصة ان الكلمات والمصطلحات التي كانت تعجزني عندما يتم نقلها بحروف عربية دون ترجمتها كنت عندما اقرأ ترجمتها بالانجليزيه وعندما أرجع إلى أصل اشتقاقها والمعروف بعلم الاشتقاق والذي يترجمه بعض مترجمينا (إيتومولجيا) ترجمة ل ( etymology ) وجدت أن الكلمات تثير تصورات معينة ولها دلالات واضحة وأنها لو نقلت بمفردات عربية لحملت نفس الدلالات.


قد يرى البعض أن ما كتبته لا علاقة له بالكتاب الذي من المفترض أن اكتب له مراجعة، ولكن ترجمة الكتاب مجرد دليل على العبث والاستسهال بالنسبة للمترجم وتعجيز القاريء، فالترجمة تكاد تكون غير مفهومة، فتراكيب الجمل لا هي عربية ولا إنجليزية، وبعض المصطلحات نقلت بحروف عربية دون ترجمة، مع أن الترجمة الإنجليزية المعتمدة عبارة عن قطعة أدبية بلاغية وهي الطريقة التي اتبعها شلايرماخر اعتقادا منه أن الدين (شعور) ولا يمكن تناول موضوعه إلا بشكل بلاغي تمثيلي بمس الشعور ق��ل الفكر، ولكن أتت الترجمة عبثية فلا مست شعورا ولا أوصلت فكرا.... وحتى لا يظنن أحد أنني متعالم أو أبرز قدراتي، فأنا والله لا ألجأ للإنجليزية التي لا أتقنها إلا في الشديد القوي وعندما تفشل كل محاولاتي مع الترجمة العربية، فتعليقاتي هذه تعليقات شخص يجد العديد والعديد من الصعوبات في القراءة بالانجليزية، ولكني على أي حال اتوجه بالشكر لكل مترجم سيء لأنه أتاح لي فرصة اللجوء لوسائط آخرى أكدت لي أن العيب ليس في دائما، وأن الفلسفة ممكن أن تكون لذيذة وممتعة ومثير للعقل دون تعقيد ولا فذلكة ... الحمد لله.

[Josh Issa · Rating 1 out of 5]

I think this was probably the most boring book I have read this year. Barth clears easilyyyyyyyyyy.

[mohab samir · Rating 4 out of 5]

الكتاب عبارة عن خمس خطابات موجهة للمثقفين الغربيين فى مطلع القرن التاسع عشر ولكن بالطبع كما يجب أخذ طابع الزمان والمكان والشخصية فى الحسبان عند تكوين فكرة عن اى عمل يجب أن نعيد التفكير مرة أخرى فى العمل متخليين عن هذه التحديدات ومحاولين أن نستخلص منه ما هو عابر لكل تحديد .
يحاول شلايرماخر تخليص الدين وتنزيهة من كل ما يشوبه نتيجة التفكير المختلط او التفكير أحادى الجانب او الأخذ بالظاهر والحرفية كمحاولة كيركجور لتخليص الدين والكنيسة من تسطيح فكرة الدين على يد الكهنة المنتفعين بتغييب العقول .
ونجده يتهم الفلاسفة بخلط مفهوم الدين الذى لم يبحثوا فعلا فيه بالاخلاق والميتافيزيقا والسياسة التى هى بالفعل مجال بحثهم . رغم علو الدين كفكر شامل لهذه الملحقات التابعة له فيمكن تناول افكار دينية بمعزل عن هذه الموضوعات وإن كانت تقودنا اليها فى النهاية . كما يرى شلايرماخر ان (الأحكام غير المستندة الى استشفاف معنى الحياة بالدين لا تقترب من فهم الدين الا كاقتراب الجاهل من وجهة نظر صحيحة)
لذلك فإن التأمل الفكرى والشعور والحدس هى عناصر الدين الذاتى الذى هو ضرورة فردية وكلية والدين يمنح حرية الاعتقاد فى طبيعة الله والمعجزات والوحى لأنه الحرية المطلقة للذات .
إلا أنى وجدت فى المنافحين الغربيين عن الدين - وأغلبهم بروتستانت - كشلايرماخر وكيركجور انهم يذكرون تبنيهم لمعتقد او دين محدد على استحياء ولذلك هم يدافعون عن الدين ضد الفلسفة او يحاولون احتواء الفلسفة - وكذلك الاخلاق والفن - بالدين ويعظمون الشعور الدينى ويعلون من اهميته الاجتماعية والوجودية ، الذاتية والكلية ولكنهم لا يتحدثون عن ما يجعل المرء ذا دين كأن يعتنق عقيدتهم مثلاً او يتبنى عقيدة ما حسب جغرافيته او حسب قناعته وهل من الضرورى أخذ دين ما فى جملته حتى بأبعد ما يحتويه من تطرف وعنصرية وخرافة أم يجوز إجتزاء الدين فى أنفسنا بأن نؤمن ببعضه ونكفر ببقيته ام هل يجوز لنا أن نكتفى بفكرة الدين المجردة بلا أى إنتماء خاص .
لكن الأهم هو الحديث الملهم والفصيح والمستمر خلال الكتاب والذى يثبت التأكيد المستمر للكاتب على فردية وخصوصية التجربة الدينية والتى لابد ان يتفق فيها البشر من حيث المضمون ولكن لن تتماهى اى تجربة مع الأخرى من حيث المظهر وهو الذى يهتم به البشر نظرا لسهولة ملاحظته والتعامل معه هذه السهولة التى تتناسب مع عجزهم وسذاجتهم . التى تؤدى إلى تشويه صورة الدين . فالدين لا يتم إبرائه من الشبهات إلا بجعل الفكر مرتبطاً به فكل منهما ضرورى لحماية الآخر .
لذا فالمتدين الحقيقيى والمدرك لشمولية الفكر الدينى وضرورته التى تفرض تحققه الذاتى فى نفسه كما فى كل نفس فلا يسعه الا تأويل المظاهر - بما تشمله من تعدد وقدرة على للخداع - الى الجانب المؤدى للوحدة الحقيقية للوجود اى الى جانب فكرة الدين الذاتية - المنطقية - التى تعى هيمنتها وشموليتها فالخلاص كما يقول لا يأتى من الخارج .

[Raphael Lysander · Rating 5 out of 5]

الأسلوب الصوفي في الكتابة و الشبيه بأسلوب هيغل نفرني من الكتاب في البداية لكن مع بعض الجهر وحال الدخول في جو الكتاب لم استطع تركه لساعات متواصلة. كتاب لا يمكن قراءته كرواية مسلية بعد العصر أو على الشاطئ لكن المتعة الفكرية والجهد العقلي اللازم للتركيز معه وفهم أفكاره أمر من أسمى ما يكون وأكثر ما قرات متعة
ولقد فاجاني الكتاب من عدة نواحي، فقد ظننت أنه سيدافع بطريقة ميتافيزيقية عن الدين ضد العلم او سيدافع عن المسيحية ضد بقية الاديان ولكنه كان على العكس من ذلك من أكثر ما قرأت فرادة وتقبلا لتنوع التجربة الدينية
رأي شلايرماخر باختصار رغم أن الكتاب عصي على الاختصار:
ينقسم البشر بين مسعيين: تأسيس فرديتهم و الشوق للتخلي عن أنفسهم. الأول يؤدي إلى شهوانية لا تشبع (التجريبية) والثاني إلى مبادئ مجردة (العقلانية). كلاهما مشوه وبعيد عن الحقيقة. أولئك الذين يوحدون كلا الدوافع في التجربة هم وسطاء بين الإنسان المحدود والإنسانية اللانهائية.
ما هو أصل الدين؟ الخوف من الوجود الأبدي والرغبة في الخلود؟ ربما، ولكن شلايرماخر يريد أن يكون واضحًا بأن الدين ليس نظامًا. يتم اكتشاف الدين في العواطف، وليس في التجربة العلمية ولا روح عالية التأمل، لا في الميتافيزيقيا ولا المنطق المحض. من أجل فهم الدين ، يجب على المرء يحس بالدين كما يحس بالفن وأن ينقل نفسه إلى داخل روح الكون ويسعى لفهم إلهام اللامنتهي.
يُعتقد عادة أن الدين هو إما طريقة تفكير أو طريقة للتأثير، ولكنه ليس كذلك في الأساس. النتيجة النهائية للدين هي أن تشعر أنه، في أعلى وحدة له ، كل ما يحركنا في الشعور هو واحد.
وفي رأي شلايرماخر أن الوحدة الأساسية للتدين تنشر نفسها في مجموعة كبيرة ومتنوعة من الأشكال. وهكذا فإن الدين يعبّر عن نفسه بتنوع لا نهاية له. الدين مثل الموسيقى، كل معزوفة عظيمة. محيط الدين هو لانهائي، ولا يمكن فهمه في شكل واحد، ولكن فقط تحت المجموع الكلي لجميع الأشكال. الوعي اللانهائي يرافق الدين أبداً.

[Brent · Rating 5 out of 5]

Old translation but excellent content.

[Levi · Rating 3 out of 5]

idk, yk?

[Tylor Lovins · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was very useful to me, from a Wittgensteinian perspective, while I was trying to think about the so-called 'primitive reaction' that enables belief. In this case, Schleiermacher was useful in helping me understand what sort of reaction to life as a whole is embodied in Christian doctrine. This attitude seems to be put most clearly in this book, as Schleiermacher outlines the feeling of complete dependency on the Whole. Schleiermacher is so useful because he is very honest, it seems, with himself. He also seems to give 'outsiders,' as it were, a way to begin using religious terminology as he defines things like miracle, revelation and inspiration.
I think this book is extremely useful if one wants to think about Christian religion in light of Wittgenstein's philosophy.

It becomes clear that Schleiermacher, when talking about religion, is talking about the comprehension of the Universe as a whole (86). He goes on to say that doctrines and dogmas are contemplations of this feeling (87). Schleiermacher recognizes that this exposition of religious language, as an expression of a certain feeling, puts it in a distinct language game: “Religion, however loudly it may demand back all those well abused conceptions, leaves your physics untouched, and please God, also your psychology” (88).
He goes on, in this light, to describe the uses of religious terms. A ‘miracle’ is ‘simply the religious name for an event’ (88). A ‘revelation’ is every ‘original and new communication of the Universe to man’ (89). I take this to mean that anytime language gives perspective to life, then it is revelatory language—if it is not a common formulation. Inspiration is ‘the general expression for the feeling of true morality and freedom’ (89). I take this to mean that religious people use the word ‘inspiration’ when they are talking about that which calls them into being (i.e., that which, in spite of there not being anything which we desire, moves one to act). A ‘prophecy’ is simply ‘anticipation of the other half of a religious event, one half being given’ (89). Lastly, the ‘operation of grace’ is ‘the common expression for revelation and inspiration’ (90). This is different from revelation or inspiration in and of themselves because, it seems, the revelation, in this instance, is synonymous with inspiration. That is to say, the revelation is oneself—one’s actions—and that which works in oneself, the inspiration.’ It seems similar to Bultmann’s ‘must.’ Perhaps it is reminiscent of Paul’s ‘not me but Christ in me.’
Schleiermacher goes on to make a distinction between true belief and false belief (90-91). This seems to be the distinction between faith, on the one hand, and belief as intellectual assent to doctrines on the other. This point is well taken, given our previous discussions about it: “Not every person has religion who believes in a sacred writing, but only the man who has a lively and immediate understanding of it, and who, therefore, so far as he himself is concerned, could most easily do without it’ (91).
Although Schleiermacher calls ‘God’ and ‘immortality’ ideas as opposed to feelings—and I am not sure what to make of this distinction, it does not seem reasonable—, he points to ‘God’ as a unifying concept ‘in whom alone the particular thing is one and all’ (93). ‘Is not God the highest, the only unity?’ ‘And if you see the world as a Whole, a Universe, can you do it otherwise than in God?’ (94). But this is not what it is to know God for religious people (94). The religious way of knowing God is not tied to any subject-predicate distinction—the term ‘God’ has instances of meaning as it is given ‘attributes’ (94). Phillips agrees here, and this seems to be the point at which Schleiermacher differs from Dewey, most drastically. ‘God’ is not simply one subject with one predicate (i.e., God is not simply the unity of the Universe); ‘God’ is ‘the sum of all higher feelings’ (85). This ties together the concept of God with the concept of immortality. Eternal life—that quality of life which every pious person has—is knowing God. In this sense, to embrace ‘the sum of all higher feelings’ is to, at the same time live content in our relation to God ‘wherein all that is individual and fleeting disappears’ (100). This is to say that living out of one’s feeling of dependence to God enables on to (1) not be disturbed by contingency and (2) maximize ‘the operation of grace’ (90). This seems to be the notion of joy.
Although I am confused about Schleiermacher’s distinctions between ideas and feeling, I think his exposition of religious concepts is very useful—it enables one to see where once it was dark. I am, of course, talking about myself.

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

Why do I do these things to myself? I read an intriguing reference in one book to another, go looking (in this case finding a work first published in Germany in 1799, translated in 1893) and then bite off more than I can chew without enervating perservance. (This is the first time I've experienced the estimated remaining reading time going UP on my Kindle as I read, rather than going down. This trend continued for well over an hour.) I suppose it might be good for me in some way.

Anyway, here are some thoughts arising from the attempt (always with the proviso that perhaps I have no idea what I'm talking about). The 'review' jumps in mid-thought...

One of the main contentions of this work is that religion isn't primarily about thinking (ie holding to certain mental assents) or doing (ie enacting certain morals or ethics) but feeling. It is piety, the experience of religion, that is the primary thing.

So, for example, doctrines and theological conceptions arise from the contemplation of feelings:

"Miracle, inspiration, revelation, supernatural intimations, much piety can be had without the need of any one of these conceptions. But when feeling is made the subject of reflection and comparison they are absolutely unavoidable. In this sense all these conceptions do certainly belong to the sphere of religion, and indeed belong without condition or the smallest limit to their application."

But - and now for the big statement - "the true nature of religion is ... immediate consciousness of the Deity as He is found in ourselves and in the world."

Kierkegaard is often labeled (sometimes pejoratively) 'the father of existentialism' but  Schleiermacher (the elder of the two) seems to espouse a quite radical human subjectivity. It seems (if I understand) to be existentialism writ large. Maybe philo-theological figures can only carry one label, and Schleiermacher has already got 'father of liberal protestantism'.

In the 20th century, feelings became a major feature of religion. But you may be interested to note that this didn't really occur through 'liberal protestantism' (which is heavily intellectual), but rather through such things as the pietist movement, Wesleyanism and, most extremely, pentecostalism. This isn't a criticism per se, just a note. I'm in agreement with Schleiermacher and Kierkegaard and pietism and Wesley and pentecostalism in regard to the basic idea that religion must receive vigor in the area of personal experience. Clearly, things can get out of balance (in any direction) between thinking, acting and feeling. But feeling remains vital - the importance of the individual's lived experience and the intuition and meaning that arises from it.

So that's within Christianity. But it's also obvious that the church isn't the only location in which feelings rise to prominence in the 20th century, and on into 21st. It's the whole of western society. And in that regard, if we are looking for roots, we turn to Romanticism, and that takes us directly to the historical and cultural context in which Schleiermacher is writing. The 'cultured despisers' of the subtitle are movers in the realm of German Romanticism. They are his audience and they form the cultural melieu in which he is moving. He's one of them.

There's the Renaissance and the Enlightenment prior, which feed into Romanticism, but I think the Reformation, with its emphasis on the individual (face to face with God) is a major seed bed for what emerges as Romanticism (and later, existentialism). And I don't think it's a surprise that Schleiermacher is a protestant reformed theologian.

(These lineages are problematic, by the way. In reality, they are complex matrices, webs, reaching such levels of complexity that in the end you have to resort to such terms as zeitgeist... simply a historical vibe in the air, a mood, a shift. This is one reason the approach of, say, Francis Schaeffer and his blaming of Kierkegaard for the ills of 20th century culture is so flawed (I forget if he singles out Schleiermacher... he probably would, if he didn't).)

Romanticism is deeply humanistic - it really places a major emphasis on humanity as the ground of the divine. The 'I', the sensing self, is highly important (strongly evidenced in Schleiermacher). Personally, I think this is understandable. But it's also probably (or definitely) limited. In Romanticism, the I desires connection. And one of the major realms for this is nature. So Schleiermacher talks about the World-Spirit or the Universe. Here's that old chestnut about pantheism again. But it's a very big term - even bigger when he refers to the Whole.

I think for Schleiermacher using terms like that goes beyond just framing things in a way that his 'cultured despisers' would allow - he embraces this perspective himself. But he is still a minister in the context of Christianity (and apologist, though a quite unorthodox one) and so for him terms like this still very much carry their capital letters as signifiers of the divine in the sense of Deity, or Eternal Being, ultimately named as God (though not ideally, to Schleiermacher, a personal being... he sees that as limited). Functionally, from the perspective of the human subject (facilitated by the religious sense), it grows out from and encompasses the I, surpasses mere individuality, connects the we, and ultimately draws into the whole.

And so, deep into the second speech,

"Some prominent emotions of religion connected with nature and humanity, I have now sketched in vague outline. I have brought you to the limits of your horizon. Here is the end and summit of religion for all to whom humanity is the whole world. But consider that in your feeling there is something that despises these bounds, something in virtue of which you cannot stay where you are. Beyond this point only infinity is to be looked into."

And here's the altar call:

"Must you not rather long all the more for that universal union with the world which is only possible through feeling, the more you are separated and isolated by definite culture and individuality? Have you not often felt this holy longing, as something unknown? Become conscious of the call of your deepest nature and follow it, I conjure you."

There is a lot more in the book. The above is just me processing aspects of two out of five speeches (and what 'speeches' they are, at about two hours long apiece). A fair bit of it I zoned out for, got tangled up in long, drawn out propositions, lost myself amongst assertions for which I had no cultural context, and waded through arguments that just didn't seem to land quite right - to quite be true.

But I highlighted here and there. Here's a nice little quote, for example:

"With rigid systematizers [on the one hand] or shallow indifferentists [on the other] you will not find the spirit of a religion. It is found only among those who live in it as their element, and ever advance in it without cherishing the folly that they embrace it all."

In the latter parts of the fifth speech comes a rather fascinating investigation of Christianity per se (rather than religion in general) (though it grows out of a patronising and down-putting assessment of Judaism). This is a pretty great quote too:

"What do you call that feeling of an unsatisfied longing which is directed towards a great object, and which you are conscious is infinite? What impresses you on finding the sacred and the profane, the noble with the common and the mean intimately united? And what is the mood that urges you at times to assume the universality of this combination, and to search for it everywhere? With Christians this holy sadness is not occasional, but is the dominant tone of all their religious feelings. That is the only name which the language affords me. It accompanies every joy and every pain, every love and every fear. Nay, in its pride and in its humility it is the ground tone."

And with that sense of holy sadness hanging in the air as ever, I bid this reading das lebewohl.

[Robin · Rating 2 out of 5]

Turgid and impenetrable

[Dan Glover · Rating 3 out of 5]

As with Kant, there is lots I disagree with here (although less than with Kant, I suppose). But I gave this a 3 because it is so important to understand Liberal Protestant theology downstream of him. There are many conservative theologians that demonize Schleiermacher completely and totally. I understand why they do. But given the water he was swimming in, I think he attempted to swim upstream culturally speaking. And one bright spot in this book that I was not expecting was his railing against the union of church and state wherein the state always controls, corrupts and derails the church and its true mission/purpose since it has a different agenda. Did this influence Bonhoeffer's or Barth's thought during the Nazi regime? I dunno but it seams plausible. For the most part Barth was pushing back against Schleiermacher's influence but this might be one place where he agreed (as well as with the centrality of Christ for every aspect of Christian faith and doctrine).

[Jussi Halonen · Rating 1 out of 5]

Schleiermacherista alkoi liberaaliteologian aikakausi. Halusin perehtyä sen juuriin, vaikka tiesinkin ettei se itsessään ole minua varten.

Vapaamuotoinen tiivistelmä: Uskonto on Schleiermacherille tunnetta, taidetta, mystikkaa. Ei siis vain kristinusko, vaan se mikä on kaikissa uskonnoissa ja myös uskonnottomissa ihmisissä luomakunnassa ihastusta herättävää (sanotaan nyt tähtitaivaan saavuttamattomuus, meren aaltojen kohina, tulenliekin taianomainen tanssi jne) on Jumalan ihmettelemistä. Valistuksen ja rationalismin pommituksen jälkeen uskonnon on paettava tiedon alueelta tunteen ja vaikutelmien alueelle.

Evolutiivisesti kristinusko tulee kehittymään pois, emmekä enää tarvitse silloin mitään ulkonaisia välittäjiä, vaan jokainen ihmettelee maailmankaikkeuden ja Luojan tekojen äärettömyyttä oman tunteensa kautta. Kristinusko tulee seuraavaksi kehittymään sen jännitteen kautta, että Saksassa roomalaiskatoliset olivat toinen teesi ja evankeliset sille antiteesi. Kuulostaa hegeliläiseltä, voisikohan se peräti olla sitä?🤔

[Josh · Rating 2 out of 5]

From one perspective, an important book in the history of theology. From another perspective – the One that matters — chaff that the wind blows away. Only worth your time if you need to study significant theological errors.

[Mohamed Albarqi · Rating 1 out of 5]

الكتاب ده من الكتب اللي خليتني أجز و انا باقراها ، الكتاب اشبه بحوار طفل افتكر انه أحاط بما لم نحط به و جاءنا من الجانب الاخر بنبأ عليم، انا فعليا في لحظات شعرت بإن الحويني بيكلمني ، مجرد شخص لو ملأراسه بما ملأ بطنه كان امتعني على الاقل، اتمنى تكون العيوب دي عيوب ترجمة  ، نجمة واحدة

[Truls Ljungström · Rating 3 out of 5]

Intressant, men snäv. Det finns passager som är relevanta även utanför religionsstudiet.

[Sooho Lee · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fredrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (1768-1834) -- a name that cannot be more German -- was and is one of Germany's most celebrated theologians of the early Modern era. His résumé is impressive: a widely popular pastor, a highly respected professor of theology at University of Halle (1804-1807), and one of the founding faculty members of the University of Berlin (1810-1834). Schleiermacher is most known for two works: On Religion (1799) and The Christian Faith (1821-2). But what's notable about On Religion is that Schleiermacher never abandoned it -- coming back and revising it as late as 1821. His repeated visits to his On Religion is enough warrant, I think, for any theologian of any stride to wade through it carefully and cautiously.

The most helpful note to keep in mind while reading On Religion is Schleiermacher's audience: the Cultured Despisers, or his Romantic companions. On Religion was written because his friends, who enthusiastically rode the Early Romanticism wave, pressured Schleiermacher to give an account of why he would uphold something as foolish and corrupted as religion, more specifically Christianity. Though Romanticism's dismay with religion cannot be reduced to one or two points, Schleiermacher's friends thought religion kept people stupid, limited, and subservient to an institution.

Schleiermacher disagreed: True religion protects the individual's freedom. Religion does not bind but frees the individual to "intuit" the universe, or recognize the infinite in the finite. And because the infinite cannot be contained in the finite, there are infinite finite ways to intuit. In other words, each individual's intuition is different and valid. Thus, freedom has to be protected: any hindrance or quenching might limit one's intuition. But not all intuitions are equally valid. Towards the end of his final speech, Schleiermacher relegates the highest form of religious intuition in Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity.

Though his mature Christology comes in The Christian Faith, Schleiermacher's Christology is intriguing here. I'm fascinated by how Schleiermacher interprets or uses the Chalcedonian Formula -- that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human -- to validate Jesus as the par excellence of religious intuition. The perfection of intuition, or "consciousness of religiousness," is found in Christ because he is both God and human -- infinite and finite. Schleiermacher borrows the language of Chalcedon but situates in religious epistemology, or how humans can know religious things.

One lurking question I have is how much American Evangelicalism owes a debt to Schleiermacher. While he is affectionately adored by liberals and vehemently abhorred by more classical or orthodox theologians, Schleiermacher language of religion sounds awfully like an Evangelical youth pastor: "Christianity is not philosophy or moralism, but a relationship" vs. Schleiermacher's "Religion is not metaphysics nor morals, but the intuition of one's connection to the infinite" (paraphrased).

Another layer of inquiry is how Schleiermacher's construction of the human as the center of intuition relates to how many Biblists constructs the Bible as the center of intuition. In other words, how Schleiermacher treats the human is similar to how Evangelicals treat the Bible in religious knowledge.

I don't agree with Schleiermacher 100%, rarely do I agree with anyone that much! But I cannot deny that Schleiermacher is so fascinating -- the way he thinks is so unique, and I love and hate that.

[Ed · Rating 2 out of 5]

Herr Schleiermacher engages in the quixotic task of, unsurprisingly, defending religion to its cultured despisers. The European wars of religion ended a century earlier, but the consequent negativity towards religion in general is still prevailing. Whereas Immanuel Kant based his apology upon reason, Schleiermacher sought to defend religion as a pure sentiment of finite humans interacting with the Infinite. Religions then, are nothing more than various attempts to describe and teach exactly how to go about such a task. Are they propounded by mistaken and dogmatic people? At times, yes. Do they lead to violence and dissension? Yes and yes but they are completely necessary for the meaningful task of experiencing the Infinite.

Schleiermacher argues that religions are all generally working on the same task and that pluralism is a beneficial thing because different people have different ways of relating to God. Of course Schleiermacher is a 18th century european man so he has to assert that Christianity is superior, although St. Paul would not recognize his definition of it. Schleiermacher rips the guts out of religion, but democratically because he rips the guts out of all religions. True religion is nothing more than a feeling. On one interpretation he says so little about what religion is that it's meaningless; on another his definition asserts something about all religions that just isn't true. Either way he is unsuccessful in his task.

[أنتيجوُنا . · Rating 4 out of 5]

لا أتفق مع كل ما جاء فيه لكن ألق مخاطبة الوجدان والإعلاء من شأن العاطفة فيه وسط ثغاء جموع النخب الهادر الذي يتوسل عادة أبنية العقل المنيعة أو دوارق التجربة الشفافة.. ألق لا يعادله ألق و رقة تراها ربما لأول مرة قلبك حتى يبلغ بك الظن أن ما هو بين جنبيك أكثر خفة من صفحات الكتاب التي تقلبها بين يديك

[Parker C. Haley · Rating 3 out of 5]

One of the key components to the comprehension of this book is the knowledge of the era in which it is written—the Enlightenment period. A period in which propriety is seen as the moral standard of judgement. The best ‘actor’ is the one with the best morals. Enlightenment Rationalist would lay out exactly in front of you with how it should be and lack ambiguity and theoretical points... I.e. Edmund Burke’s book “A Philosophical Enquiry into the Sublime and the Beautiful.” Schleiermacher also discusses Sublime and how this plays a role within religion aspects of experience. But Schleiermacher, being a pietist, clearly wants to critique the Enlightenment Rationalist who often are Diest. With the surge of Natural Science of this period it leads believers to want more answers within religion and this is where the Deism becomes popular; however, Schleiermacher critiques this idea by proclaiming religion hinges on intuition and feeling. Metaphysics (Hegel) and Morals (Kant), are just subordinates to the intuition and feeling. Religion experience cannot be taught, it has to be an individual experience that comes with the intuition of the universe. The idea of God’s omnipresence. Knowing one is a “cut out of the infinite” in this finite world. Schleiermacher wants to bring back this original concept of religion and get away from this deistic and rationalistic concept of religion.

[Viktoria Chipova · Rating 5 out of 5]

Review: 5/5 ⭐️
On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers – Friedrich Schleiermacher

A masterpiece of theological and philosophical brilliance, On Religion is a passionate, eloquent defense of religion addressed directly to the Enlightenment-educated skeptics of Schleiermacher’s time — and still astonishingly relevant today. With a tone that is both personal and polemical, Schleiermacher redefines religion not as doctrine or morality, but as feeling and intuition of the infinite, rooted in our direct consciousness of existence.

He doesn't argue for religion through logic or authority. Instead, he elevates it as a unique, irreducible human faculty — the awareness of absolute dependence on something greater. His goal is not to convert, but to rescue religion from both institutional rigidity and intellectual dismissal, situating it as a central dimension of human life alongside art and philosophy.

What earns this book a 5/5 is its rare combination of emotional sincerity, intellectual rigor, and literary grace. Schleiermacher writes with the intensity of a prophet and the precision of a philosopher, making this one of the most important foundational texts in modern theology, religious studies, and even existential thought.

In summary:
On Religion is a rich, bold, and beautiful reclaiming of the religious impulse for the modern soul. A must-read for those who feel caught between belief and skepticism, reason and wonder. Schleiermacher doesn’t preach — he inspires.

[Austin Spence · Rating 2 out of 5]

Definitely leaning more towards philosophy or epistemology than what I was looking for, which was a book on theology. Schleirmacher attempted to write to his Romantic friends in Germany convincing them that the ethics and thought in which they live by is resemblant of religion. "Practice is art, speculation is science, religion is sense and taste for the Infinite." He argues that throughout, but lands on the fact that God or a deity MUST be involved for a religion to exist. He was basically trying to make them aware of the similarities of culture and religion in their academic context.

Honestly, had such a bummer of a time with this book, but it was written to a very intelligent crowd 200 years ago. There were nuggets here and there, but definitely wasn't expecting a deep dive.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Written in 1799, this text could not be more contemporary. Schleiermacher speaks insightfully to the skepticism of our time, helping us to understand the need for some intuition of the infinite - which is by definition not accessible by reason alone. Barth's critique of Schleiermacher is right on target from my point of view, but it is so powerful that it has caused most students of theology to treat Schleiermacher as a footnote, a mere foil for Barth. While I have many points at which I would like to debate Schleiermacher, there is much more here that should be digested by those who seek after truth.

[Samuel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Maybe Schleiermacher's most famous work and the one that I haven't really spent any time reading until this year. This is an incredibly dense and textured little book and one that I imagine I will return to again and again. I read this in a group of people who are much more brilliant than me and this was a great help in making sense of the text. However, even with all that help it still felt foreign to me (I think I am much more comfortable when Schleiermacher is dealing with explicitly doctrinal questions as in Christian Faith). For this reason I'm not sure this text resonates with me as much as his others, but still a classic in its own right and worth reading.

[Santiago Iturbide]

What Religion is,
-A feeling of absolute dependance
-A sense and taste for the infinite
-Religion is not believing things and doing moral acts, for Religion touches us more fundamentally than the spheres of knowing and doing.
-Religion is essentially contemplative. Not te contemplation of other finite beings. The contemplation of the pious is the immediate consciousness of the universal existence of all finite things in and through the infinite, and of all temporal things in and trough the eternal.
-All religious emotions are states of mind
-Man is born with the of capacity of religion as with any other capacity.

[Aaron Schuschu · Rating 4 out of 5]

The ending kind of contradicted the main theme for the sake of upholding the concept of the invisible church (which I am surprised that some Cru members wouldn’t notice if it punched them in the face), but basically the whole thing was, everybody has spiritual inclinations; and this is where atheists fool themselves. And it was expressed in much more respectful and intellectual terms than the bullshit which passes for apologetics today.

[Greg Parker · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very difficult read. I wouldn't recommend this book to really anyone but students of modern theology. I've read Schleiermacher's The Christian Faith (2x) and his Christmas Eve Story (3x) and I still found this work to be at times impossibly dense. It's hard for me to believe that this work had a wide public audience, but perhaps this says more about me than 19th century Germans.

If you do pick it up, recall that Universe and Infinite are just placeholders for "God."

[Iris Olwen]

Well, so……
This book was a total slog because I had to read it fast for class and it is old and you know that is never fun. It’s definitely a really cool book in a lot of ways, especially thinking about how on it Schleiermacher was in how he talks about pluralism. Pretty cool.
I have a hard time w books like this because I’m not majoring in religion to study theology really. It’s definitely objectively interesting but always gives me kind of an identity crisis.