Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS:
Title: Anthropology of Paul and Seneca
Author: Ivanis, Milos
Awarding Body: University of Edinburgh
Current Institution: University of Edinburgh
Date of Award: 1975
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Full text unavailable from EThOS. Please try the link below.
Access from Institution:
To speak is to be a men. To speak is to sneak of. Therefore, to speak is to speak of man. All human actions are the search-for-identity. All subjects of which humans speak are concerned with this search-foridentity. Man is interested in the world around him neither for the world's nor for curiosity's sake, but for the sake of finding his own identity. Man finds his own identity and defines his own self by virtue of positing himself in a particular manner over against, and in relation to, the world which surrounds him. Paul's and Seneca's writings are records of what they spoke, that is records of what they spoke of. In other words, Paul's and Seneca's writings provide us with sufficient material from which it is possible to infer what they thought of man. In Paul's view, man is a creature who is not at-one-wlta-himself. This not being at-one-with-himself constitutes man's actual self which is a desire to be-in-itself, i.e. to be God. This is real man, but not true man. True man is creature who realizes that the source of his existence is outside of himself, that he can never achieve the status of belng-in-itself. He cannot become being-in-itself because the presence of the Other is an incarnation of man's limits. At the same time the Other is an incarnation of nis true being and his sfc.ivation. In tiie encounter with the Other man actualizes himself, I.e. ue realizes that he is only potential being. Instead of being-in-itself he is a being-sustained-by-the-Other. Only in the presence of the Other can man find his own self. The absence of the Otner is the destruction of his own self. The true nature and the salvation of man lies in man's willingness and capacity to "embrace", i.e. to enter into communion with the Other. In beneca's view, equally as in Paul's, man is a creature who is not at-one-with-himself. As opposed to Paul's view, Oeneca's view is that man's desire to be-in-itself is potential, i.e. man's desire to be God can, and muEt, be actualized. The reason why man is not actually God is because of the presence of the Other. The Other is the incarnation of man's limits; he is a hindrance and an obstacle on man's way towards the actualization of himself. Hence the Other is man's hell, man's original sin. To achieve the true state of being, to become an actual being, i.e. God, man has to overcome his limitations. That means man has to wipe out, to destroy the Other. In whatever form the Other may present himself to man, man has to annihilate him. Man has to become the source of the Other's existence. Everything has to receive existence from man. When that is achieved, then man is ultimate. He is the source of his own existence. He is the source of the existence of the whole world. He has actualized his true state of being, i.e. he has become God. Hence, Paul and Seneca dealt with the same problem, but held diametrically opposite views about the way the problem should be solved. Their respective solutions are analyzed in regard to the questions of man and God, man and world, man and freedom, and man and eschatology. The whole is then concluded by a general survey of their attitudes.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID:  DOI: Not available