XXVIII Ежегодная богословская конференция ПСТГУ
In the text, the author proposes to consider Western esotericism at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries as a complex phenomenon, largely based on the deconstructed Christian theology and the discoveries of a new science of religion. This idea is illustrated by two examples — the teachings of R. genon and A. Crawley.
This contribution to a volume on the“ultimate why-question” discusses ambiguities in Leibniz’s formulation of the question, “[. . . ] pourquoi il y a plus tôt quelque chose que rien”. This formulation poses two problems: Leibniz does not explain how to understand the concepts of “something” and “nothing”. And it is not clear, whether “something” and “nothing” are contradictory opposites, so that there is either nothing or something, or whether both concepts denote principles which are effective in the world at the same time. My analysis rests on the hypothesis that the relevant context for Leibniz’s question is the theology of creation.
Hence, the paper compares eight different approaches to “creation from nothing” (Thomists, Scotists, Taurellus, Lubinus, Timpler, Keckermann, Kircher, Knorr von Rosenroth, van Helmont). Candidates for the nihil the world was created from include absolute non-being, thoughts in God’s mind, unformed matter, imaginary space, or a self-contraction of the Divine spirit. These different approaches can be translated into different versions of the “ultimate why-question”. The paper concludes that Leibniz’s formulation contains a comparison between two Divine acts of creation, because not only “something”, but “nothing” as well owes its subsistence to the Divine will. This rises substantial questions: either God created first an imperfect entity in order to create the world as a whole, or Leibniz subscribes to an emanative understanding of creation that either levels the difference between creation and (natural) generation or is based on misunderstanding God as a material entity.
Background: Two recent meta-analyses have suggested the association between digit ratio (2D:4D) and ag-
gression is weak. This conclusion has been criticised because the meta-analyses conflate forms of aggression that show strong sex differences with those that do not, and most studies have considered post-pubertal participants. Aims: We test the influence of 2D:4D and ethnicity in the expression of aggression in children and adolescents in four ethnic groups of European and African origin.
Study design: Buss and Perry aggression questionnaire. Direct measurement of the 2nd and 4th digits. Subjects: 1296 children and adolescents from Tanzania and Russia from 4 ethnic groups – Datoga, Meru, Russians, Tatars. Results: There were ethnic and gender differences in ratings on aggression with boys consistently reporting more physical aggression. In all four samples right 2D:4D was significantly lower in boys, compared to girls. With regard to our total sample of boys, the right 2D:4D was significantly and negatively associated with self-ratings on physical aggression, but no association was found for left 2D:4D. No associations between 2D:4D and physical aggression were found for girls. Hostility was negatively correlated with 2D:4D for boys, and anger was posi- tively correlated with 2D:4D in girls. Conclusion: Sex differences were strongest for right 2D:4D (boys < girls), and for physical aggression (boys > girls). Right 2D:4D was negatively related to physical aggression in boys only, suggesting possible relationship to prenatal androgenization.