Pikkukuvaa napsauttamalla pääset Google Booksiin.
Ladataan... Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many (1971)Tekijä: Erik Hornung
Ladataan...
Kirjaudu LibraryThingiin nähdäksesi, pidätkö tästä kirjasta vai et. Ei tämänhetkisiä Keskustelu-viestiketjuja tästä kirjasta. Erik Hornung is one of the great modern Egyptologists, and this book is probably his most important. However, it’s a fairly dense read, and I would recommend Jan Assmann’s The Search for God in Ancient Egypt, (written around the same time in the early 1980’s), as a more accessible in-depth view into ancient Egyptian thought. Still, Hornung is clearly expert in his knowledge and applies it with a subtle mind. His primary purpose seems to be to argue against previous generations of Egyptologists who thought they saw a monotheistic cognitive framework in ancient Egyptian thought. Hornung’s argument is that, in fact, Egyptian cosmological thinking was polytheistic in its very essence. He believes that it’s easy to misinterpret many Egyptian invocations to gods that, in effect, flatter the god in question by asserting that he’s “the only one.” It’s a little like someone saying to his/her lover “To me, you’re everything.” That’s not a statement you’re meant to take literally, but it can still be true on a different level. Hornung, however, goes well beyond that particular point. He describes Egyptian thought as pre-logical, a mode of cognition where if something is a, that doesn’t mean that it’s not also b. This, he argues, is a mode of thought that’s virtually unattainable for Western minds brought up on Aristotelian logic. If we could get there, he claims, we shall be able to comprehend the one and the many as complementary propositions, whose truth values within a many-valued logic are not mutually exclusive, but contribute together to the whole truth: god is a unity in worship and revelation, and multiple in nature and manifestation. That is, a god can be the only one in the cosmos, and at the same time be one of many. Consequently, Hornung sees monotheism, not as a stage along a continuum from polytheism, but as a “transformation”, accompanying the cognitive revolution to Aristotelian-style logic, a world of binary opposites, where the answer can be “yes” or “no” but not “yes and no.” Although Assmann states that he disagrees with Hornung’s view of Egyptian polytheistic thought, I see their views as largely compatible. They both discuss the Akhenaten revolution – the short-lived imposition of true monotheistic worship on Egypt – as a hiatus utterly incompatible with the Egyptian worldview. But more than that, I think Hornung’s view of monotheism as a “conceptual transformation” fits in with Assmann’s view of the transition in Egypt’s history towards a kind of “cognitive dissonance”, with a “pantheistic theology of transcendence” which set the stage for later monotheistic thought. Under Assmann’s model, we’re still looking at a complete transformation between polytheism and monotheism - Assmann, in my view, goes further than Hornung by describing the transformative phase of post-Amarna Egyptian cosmology. The most valuable take-away I get from Hornung is his emphasis on seeing the shift from polytheism to monotheism as a transformative stage in human consciousness. As he says, “Both of these worlds are consistent within their own terms of reference, but neither transcends historical space or can claim absolute validity.” I think this is an important frame of reference, which I elsewhere categorize by stages of the pfc’s advance in its power over human consciousness. In my categorization, there’s another shift from monotheism to scientific method, which has taken place over the past few hundred years. And most importantly, I think our world is ready for the next stage in the development of our global consciousness. näyttää 2/2 ei arvosteluja | lisää arvostelu
Osiris, Horus, Isis, Thoth, Anubis - the many strange and compelling figures of the Egyptian gods and goddesses seem to possess endless fascination. The renowned Egyptologist Erik Hornung here studies the ancient Egyptians' conceptions of god, basing his account on a thorough reappraisal of the primary sources. His book, now available in English for the first time, is the most extensive exploration yet undertaken of the nature of Egyptian religion. Hornung examines the characteristics, spheres of action, and significance of Egyptian gods and goddesses, analyzing the complex and changing iconography used to represent them, and disentangling the many seemingly contradictory aspects of the religion of which they are a part. He seeks to answer two basic questions: How did the Egyptians themselves see their gods? Did they believe there was an impersonal, anonymous force behind the multiplicity of their deities? Throughout, he attempts to evoke the complexity and richness of the religion of the ancient Egyptians and of their worldview, which differs so greatly from our own. A work of extraordinary distinction, Hornung's book will appeal to anyone interested in ancient Egypt, in ancient religion, and in the history of religion, as well as students and scholars of ancient history, anthropology, and archaeology. Sensitively translated by John Baines and with a new preface by the author, this edition has been amplified and updated with an English-language audience in mind. Kirjastojen kuvailuja ei löytynyt. |
Current Discussions-Suosituimmat kansikuvat
Google Books — Ladataan... LajityypitMelvil Decimal System (DDC)299.31Religions Other Religions By Region/Civilization Of North African Origin Ancient EgyptianKongressin kirjaston luokitusArvio (tähdet)Keskiarvo:
Oletko sinä tämä henkilö? |
De zwakste paragraaf is ongetwijfeld die over de 'logische vraag', aan het einde van het boek. Die vraag beschrijft hij als een spanning tussen het goddelijke als één en absoluut en de inherente begrensdheid van de godenwereld. Daarmee lijkt hij impliciet toch weer een onderliggend monotheïsme te veronderstellen. Zijn antwoord, een verwijzing naar de quantummechanica, overtuigt niet. Het is niet uitgewerkt, maar bovenal legt het niet uit hoe Egyptenaren dachten.
Het logische probleem schuilt eerder in de vaststelling dat binnen het Egyptische henotheïsme verschillende goden de rol van meest vooraanstaande kunnen opnemen - en dat vaak tegelijkertijd, in dezelfde teksten. Het gaat daarbij niet alleen om grote staatsgoden, zoals Atum, Ptah of Amon, maar ook om minder bekende lokale godheden. Ook het doorgedreven syncretisme, waarbij goden 'samengevoegd' worden tot nieuwe eenheden - met Amon-Re als meest bekende voorbeeld - blijft moeilijk te begrijpen.
Zou een functionele benadering meer inzicht bieden? Gaat de rol of functie van de god voor op zijn identiteit, die voor de Egyptenaar in essentie onkenbaar blijft?
Hornung heeft geen aandacht voor de rituele of religieuze praktijk, terwijl teksten vaak wel uit die praktijk voortgekomen zijn. ( )