Paul Tillich'de din-sembol ilişkisi
Loading...
Date
2004
Authors
Çınar, Aliye
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Uludağ Üniversitesi
Abstract
Paul TiIIich'de (1886-1965) din ve sembol ilişkisini ele alır. Tiilich'e göre, din dili, sembolik bir dildir. Tillich, sembollerin bizzat kendilerinin ötesindeki başka bir şeye işaret ettiklerini düşünür. Göstergelerin aksine semboller, sembolize ettikleri şeyin gücüne katılırlar. Sembol bir hakikate sahiptir: O, ifade ettiği vahiyle uygunluk içindedir. Dinî semboller, işaret ettikleri ilâhinin gücüne katıldıkları ölçüde hakiki semboller olabilirler. Dinî semboller, şeyler, kişiler ve olaylar sayesinde nihaîyi taşırlar. Tillich için Tanrısal olan ile insan arasında dinamik bir ilişki vardır. Dolayısıyla din ve kültür arasında da dinamik bir ilişki vardır. Din, tinin (spirit) şartsız olana yönelmesidir. Tin, nihaî boyutta ele geçiren, devingen bir güçtür. O, kesinlikle idealar ya da anlamlar sahasıyla aynı değildir. O, direnmeye karşı koyan dinamik güçtür. Öyle ki, Tiilich'e göre iman, insanın nihaî olarak ilgili olma durumu olduğu için, din de dinamik bir yapı arz eder. Ona göre, din ve kültür ilişkisi öncelikle iki şekilde ifade edilebilir, ilki, otonom kültür, sadece teorik ve pratik rasyonelliğin taleplerini izleyerek, her hangi şartsız ve nihaî bir şeye referansta bulunmaksızın, kişisel ve sosyal yaşamın formlarını yaratma teşebbüsüdür. Teonom kültür ise, nihaî ilgi ve şartsız bir anlamı kendi yaratımlarında yabancı bir şey olarak değil de, kendi tinsel temeli olarak ifade eder. Nitekim 'din kültürün özü, kültür de dinin formudur.' Aslında bu söz, teonom kültürün tartışmasız ifadesidir. Tillich klâsik teizmin Tanrı'sını kabul etmez. O, teizmin Tanrı'sının üstündeki Tanrı tecrübesinde kök salan var olma cesaretini ya da mutlak imanı besleyen Tanrı'yı kabul eder. Tanrı 'nın üstündeki Tanrı tarafından ele geçirilmiş olma ya da mutlak iman, zihnin diğer durumları yanında ortaya çıkan bir durum değildir. O, kesinlikte tecrit edilebilen ve tasvir edilebilen, belirli bir olay, bir şey değildir. O, her daim, zihnin diğer durumları içinde mevcut olan bir harekettir. O, insanî olasılıkların sınırındaki durumdur. Dolayısıyla Var olma cesareti, Tanrı, şüphe kaygısında ortadan kaybolduğunda, gün yüzüne çıkan Tanrı'da kök salar. Nitekim Tiilich'e göre, Tann'ya yönelik iki farklı yaklaşım tarzından söz edilebilir: Yabancılaşmanın üstesinden gelme ve bir yabancıyla karşılaşma, tik tarzda insan, Tanrı'yı keşfederken bizzat kendini keşfeder; keşfettiği kendini sonsuzca aşmasına rağmen, bizzat kendiyle özdeş olan, yabancılaşmakla birlikte, kesinlikle kopmadığı ve kopamayacağı bir şeyi fark eder. İkinci yolda insan, Tanrı'yla karşılaşırken bir yabancıyla karşılaşır. Bu Tanrı, temelci metafiziğin Tanrı'sıdır. Tillich nazarında Tanrı, kesinlikle varlık olmayıp, Bizzat-Varlık'tır. Bizzat- Varlık hakkında söylediğimiz her şey sembolik olmalıdır. Tanrı hakkında sembolik olmayan yegane ifade Bizzat-Varlık ifadesidir. Tillich' e göre, farklı gerçeklik seviyeleri vardır ve bunlar, kendilerini ifade edecek farklı dilleri ve yaklaşımları talep ederler. Bu meyanda, din dilinin sembolik olduğunu söylemeliyiz. Dinî semboller aksi halde bize gizli kalan gerçeklik düzeylerini ifşa eder. Ancak, dinî sembollerin de iki düzleminden söz edebiliriz: Karşılaştığımız empirik gerçekliğin ötesine geçen aşkın düzlem ve karşılaştığımız gerçeklik içinde bulduğumuz içkin düzlem. Zaten dinî semboller sonlu ve sonsuz olanı bir araya getirirler. Tillich'e göre her dinin merkezinde kutsal gerçeklik tecrübesi vardır. Bununla beraber o, geleneksel Hristiyan terminolojisinde theos (Tanrı) olarak atıfta bulunulduğu gibi, Tanrı, Kutsal, Numen Tao ya da Nirvana şeklinde de anlaşılabilir. Bu dil, sembolik bir dildir. Ona göre gerek soyut teolojide gerekse de somut olarak vaazda ifade edilen Hristiyan mesaj, günümüzün dilini kullandığı takdirde kesinlikle zamanımıza uygundur. Bu nedenle Hristiyan semboller varoluşçu felsefenin kavramlarıyla yorumlanmalıdır. Zaten teolojinin ilk görevi, sembolleri, ritüelleri ve mitleri rasyonel kavramlarla açıklamaktır. Zira dinî semboller kısmen, varoluşsal analizlerin ilgilendiği aynı durumu İfade etme biçimidir. Söz konusu analizler, kısmen durum içinde imâ edilen sorularla, kısmende bunlara verilebilecek cevaplarla ilgilenirler. Dinî semboller de, insandan ve insanın maruz kaldığı çıkmazdan söz ettiklerinde varoluşsal sorulan gündeme getirirlerken, Tanrı'dan ve Tanrı'nın bu çıkmaza tepkisinden söz ettiklerinde ise, durum içinde imâ edilen soruların cevabını dillendirirler. Tillich bu duruma, 'korelasyon yöntemi' der. Korelasyon yöntemi Tanrısal mesajı ve durumu bir araya getirebilme yoludur. Bu metod durumda ima edilen sorularla, mesajda ima edilen cevaplar arasında bir korelasyon bulmaya çalışır.
This thesis deals with Tillich's views (1886-1965) on the relationship of religion and symbol. According to Tillich, religious languge is symbolic. For Tillich, symbols direct above themselves to something else. Symbols, not like signs, participate in the power of that which they symbolize. A symbol has truth: it is adequate to the revelation it expresses. Religious symbols can be true symbols only if they participate in the power of the divine to which they point. Religious symbols transfer ultimate truth through things, persons and events. For Tillich, there is dynamic relation between divine and human. So there is dynamic relation between religion and culture, also. Religion is that spirit to incline in Unconditional. Spirit is power, grasping and moving out of the dimension of the ultimate. It is not identical with the realm of ideas or meanings. It is dynamic power, overcoming resistance. So religion is dynamics something. Religion is the state of being ultimately concerned. Firstly two points the relationship between religion and culture. According to Tillich we called an autonomous culture the attempt to create the forms of personal and social life without any reference to something ultimate and unconditional, following only the demands of theoretical and practical rationality. A theonomous culture expresses in its creations an ultimate concern and a transcending meaning not as something strange but as its own spiritual ground. "Religion is the substance of culture and culture is the form of religion." This is the most precise statement of theonomy. Tillich rejects the God of classical theism. He accepts God that is feeding on absolute faith or the courage to be which is rooted in the experience of the God above the God of theism. Tillich said that absolute faith, or the state of being grasped by the God beyond God, is not a state which appears beside other states of the mind. It never is something seperated and definite, an event which could be isoleted and desciribed. It is always a movement in, whith and under other states of the mind. It is the situation on the boundary of man's possibilities. It is this boundary. So the courage to be is rooted in the God who appears when God has disappeared in the anxiety of doupt. UIAccording to Tillich, one can distinguish two ways of approaching God: the way of overcoming estrangement and the way of meeting a stranger. In the first way man discovers himself when he discovers God; he discover something that identical with himself although it transcends him infinitely, something from which he is estranged, but from which he never has been and never can be separated. In the second way man meets a stranger when he meets God. This God is of the foundational metaphysics. For Tillich, God not certainly Being but is being-itself. Everything we say about being-itself must be symbolic. The only non-symbolical expression is being-itself about God; other expressions are symbolic According to Tillich, there are levels of reality of great difference, and that these different levels demand different approaches and different languages. So we must say that the nature of religious language is symbolic.Religious symbols open up a level of reality, which otherwhise is not opened at all, which is hidden. There are two fundamental levels in all religious symbols: the transcendent level, the level which goes beyond the empirical reality we encounter, and the immanent level, the level which we find within the encounter with reality. So religious symbol unities finite and infinite something. According to Tillich at the center of every religion, there is the experience of sacral reality, however it is understood as god, sacred, numen, tao or nirvana, which is referred to as theos in the traditional Christian termiology. This language is symbolical As according to Tillich, Christian message - be it expressed in abstract theology or concrete preaching- is relevant for our time if it uses the language of our time. Christian symbols are intrepreted to existentialist philosophy concepts. Because first duty of theology is to explain, symbols, rituels and myths by rational concept. For religious symbols are partly a way of stating the same situation with which existential analyses are concerned; partly they are answers to the questions implied in the situation. They are the former when they speak of man and his predicament. They are the latter when they speak of God and his predicament. Tillich said that is method of correlation. 'Method of correlation' is a way of uniting message and situation. It tries to correlate the questions implied in the situation with answers implied in message.
This thesis deals with Tillich's views (1886-1965) on the relationship of religion and symbol. According to Tillich, religious languge is symbolic. For Tillich, symbols direct above themselves to something else. Symbols, not like signs, participate in the power of that which they symbolize. A symbol has truth: it is adequate to the revelation it expresses. Religious symbols can be true symbols only if they participate in the power of the divine to which they point. Religious symbols transfer ultimate truth through things, persons and events. For Tillich, there is dynamic relation between divine and human. So there is dynamic relation between religion and culture, also. Religion is that spirit to incline in Unconditional. Spirit is power, grasping and moving out of the dimension of the ultimate. It is not identical with the realm of ideas or meanings. It is dynamic power, overcoming resistance. So religion is dynamics something. Religion is the state of being ultimately concerned. Firstly two points the relationship between religion and culture. According to Tillich we called an autonomous culture the attempt to create the forms of personal and social life without any reference to something ultimate and unconditional, following only the demands of theoretical and practical rationality. A theonomous culture expresses in its creations an ultimate concern and a transcending meaning not as something strange but as its own spiritual ground. "Religion is the substance of culture and culture is the form of religion." This is the most precise statement of theonomy. Tillich rejects the God of classical theism. He accepts God that is feeding on absolute faith or the courage to be which is rooted in the experience of the God above the God of theism. Tillich said that absolute faith, or the state of being grasped by the God beyond God, is not a state which appears beside other states of the mind. It never is something seperated and definite, an event which could be isoleted and desciribed. It is always a movement in, whith and under other states of the mind. It is the situation on the boundary of man's possibilities. It is this boundary. So the courage to be is rooted in the God who appears when God has disappeared in the anxiety of doupt. UIAccording to Tillich, one can distinguish two ways of approaching God: the way of overcoming estrangement and the way of meeting a stranger. In the first way man discovers himself when he discovers God; he discover something that identical with himself although it transcends him infinitely, something from which he is estranged, but from which he never has been and never can be separated. In the second way man meets a stranger when he meets God. This God is of the foundational metaphysics. For Tillich, God not certainly Being but is being-itself. Everything we say about being-itself must be symbolic. The only non-symbolical expression is being-itself about God; other expressions are symbolic According to Tillich, there are levels of reality of great difference, and that these different levels demand different approaches and different languages. So we must say that the nature of religious language is symbolic.Religious symbols open up a level of reality, which otherwhise is not opened at all, which is hidden. There are two fundamental levels in all religious symbols: the transcendent level, the level which goes beyond the empirical reality we encounter, and the immanent level, the level which we find within the encounter with reality. So religious symbol unities finite and infinite something. According to Tillich at the center of every religion, there is the experience of sacral reality, however it is understood as god, sacred, numen, tao or nirvana, which is referred to as theos in the traditional Christian termiology. This language is symbolical As according to Tillich, Christian message - be it expressed in abstract theology or concrete preaching- is relevant for our time if it uses the language of our time. Christian symbols are intrepreted to existentialist philosophy concepts. Because first duty of theology is to explain, symbols, rituels and myths by rational concept. For religious symbols are partly a way of stating the same situation with which existential analyses are concerned; partly they are answers to the questions implied in the situation. They are the former when they speak of man and his predicament. They are the latter when they speak of God and his predicament. Tillich said that is method of correlation. 'Method of correlation' is a way of uniting message and situation. It tries to correlate the questions implied in the situation with answers implied in message.
Description
Keywords
Tillich, Nihaî ilgi, Bizzat-Varlık, Şartsız, Dinî sembol, Korelasyon yöntemi, Ultimete concern, Being-itself, Unconditional, Religious symbol, Method of correlation
Citation
Çınar, A. 2004). Paul Tillich'de din-sembol ilişkisi. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi. Uludağ Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.