Zeitschriftenartikel zum Thema „Hegel-Studien“

AbstractAdorno’s Drei Studien zu Hegel (Hegel: Three Studies, 1963) offers his most focused treatment of what he took to be the core principles of Hegelian dialectic. Moreover, the book professes the central importance of Hegel for Adorno’s own development. As such, it is a pivotal document that simultaneously looks back towards Adorno’s most sustained personal work, Minima Moralia (1951), and ahead to what he took to be his most important systematic work, Negative Dialectics (1966). Adorno’s interpretation of Hegel is critical and unique in both its tone and substance. Although there are many cross-cutting lines of argumentation, the one that stands out is Adorno’s understanding of determinate negation in Hegel and his own suggestion for improving that concept. This paper reconstructs Adorno’s main arguments in this domain, assesses them as interpretations of Hegel and investigates their importance for Adorno’s emerging conception of ‘negative dialectics’.

Throughout his life, Hegel showed great interest in physics and mathematics. His most sustained, surviving treatment of Euclidean geometry is his early work ‘Geometrische Studien’, which he completed while he was a private tutor [Hoffmeister] in Frankfurt, shortly before leaving for Jena to join Schelling. GS is not easy reading, but despite that, it seems to me that Hegel presents in it a remarkably erudite as well as interesting and insightful critique of geometry. He investigates some of the themes from the foundations of geometry, in particular from the first book of the Elements of Euclid. Like the mathematical philosophies of Kant and Frege, Hegel's understanding of geometry is conceptually based, but unlike them, it is also grounded in the classical Greek philosophy of mathematics, which achieved its definitive expression in Proclus's great commentary on Euclid 1. Much of this classical philosophy of geometry is forgotten nowadays, under the influence of the great modern mathematical philosophers (in particular, Cantor, Frege and Gödel). In my view, it well deserves reconsideration, especially since, as illustrated by Gödel's incompleteness theorems, modern mathematical philosophy has failed in its attempt to ground mathematics within the framework of formal systems.Much of GS has not survived, and what remains is condensed and fragmentary. It seems that originally, Hegel covered all of the propositions of Euclid 1 rather than just the 14 propositions (1-12, 26, 29) that are covered in what remains of the original GS. I have given detailed treatment of GS together with related material in Hegel's Jena dissertation elsewhere (Paterson 2004/2005). The objective of the present paper is to introduce the translation of GS.

Resumo: Em O Capital, Marx nos alertou que a mercadoria tem um caráter misterioso que carrega “sutilezas metafísicas e argúcias teológicas”. Este artigo tenta decifrar um pouco desse mistério buscando decodifica-lo naquilo que denominamos como a estranha objetividade do valor. Para isso, analisamos a relação entre a ideologia e o valor a partir da crítica marxiana à mercadoria, consignada à lógica de Hegel. Vemos que o valor se constitui como razão ontológica da mercadoria enquanto produto do processo de trabalho que carrega uma racionalidade imanente, isto é, um espírito socialmente produzido que se objetiva à medida que é vivenciado pelos indivíduos como uma lógica social que rege as relações nesta sociedade. Isso se dá por meio de “sutilezas metafísicas” na formação da realidade social marcada por contradições estabelecidas entre, de um lado, o conteúdo objetivo das relações sociais, e de outro, a forma como essas relações são vivenciadas pela consciência na sociedade capitalista. Nesta relação entre conteúdo e forma, encontramos determinações de profundidade ontológica entre o valor e a ideologia, enquanto forma social que opera harmonizando as contradições constituintes da realidade social, a exemplo do que acontece no trabalho assalariado. A mediação ideológica se põe como uma progressão imanente à materialização da vivência concreta da relação entre capital e trabalho no salário, de maneira a naturalizar a exploração que se esconde na estranha objetividade do valor que se realiza na troca de mercadorias. Concluímos que a conexão ontológica entre o ser social e a mercadoria é socialmente ubíqua, precisamente por conta do seu caráter ideológico na formação da sociabilidade a partir do processo de trabalho subjugado ao capital. Palavras-chave: Valor. Ideologia. Trabalho, Capital. Salário. Abstract: In Capital, Marx warned us that the commodity has a mysterious character bearing "metaphysical subtleties and theological insights." This article attempts to decipher a little of this mystery by decoding it into what we call the strange objectivity of value. For this, we analyze the relation between ideology and value from the Marxian critique of the commodity, consigned to the Hegelian logic. We see that value is constituted as the ontological reason of the commodity as the product of the labor process that carries an immanent rationality, that is, a socially produced spirit that is objectified as it is experienced by the individuals as a social logic that governs the relations in this society. This is done through "metaphysical subtleties" in the formation of social reality marked by contradictions established between, on the one hand, the objective content of social relations, and on the other, the way in which these relations are experienced by consciousness in capitalist society. In this relationship between content and form, we find determinations of ontological depth between value and ideology, as a social form that operates by harmonizing the constituent contradictions of social reality, as in wage labor. Ideological mediation is seen as an immanent progression to the materialization of the concrete experience of the relation between capital and labor in wage, in order to naturalize the exploitation that is hidden in the strange objectivity of the value that is realized in the exchange of commodities. We conclude that the ontological connection between the social being and the commodity is socially ubiquitous precisely because of its ideological character in the formation of sociability from the labor process subjugated to capital. Keywords: Value. Labor. Ideology. Capital. Wage. REFERÊNCIAS ADORNO, Theodor W. Teoria Estética. [Asthetische Theorie]. Tradução de Artur Morão. – São Paulo : Livraria Martins Fontes, 1988. ADORNO, Theodor W. Três estudos sobre Hegel. [Drei Studien zu Hegel]. Tradução: Ulisses Razzante Vaccari. – 1. Ed. – São Paulo: Editora Unesp, 2013. ARAÚJO, Wécio Pinheiro. Ideologia e capital: crítica da razão imanente à sociedade moderna. Tese de doutorado. João Pessoa, PB; Leipzig, Saxônia, UFPB/UFPE/UFRN-HGB, 2018. ARTHUR, Christopher J. A nova dialética e “O Capital” de Marx. Tradução de Pedro C. Chadarevian. – São Paulo : Edipro, 2016. DUSSEL, Enrique. A Produção Teórica de Marx: um comentário sobre os Grundrisse. Tradução de José Paulo Netto. – 1 ed. – São Paulo : Expressão Popular, 2012. GERAS, Norman. Marx and the Critique of Political Economy. In: Ideology and Social Science: politics, sociology, anthropology, economics, history. – Ed. by Robin Blackburn, Fontana/Collins, 1977, p. 284-305. JAEGGI, Rahel. Alienation: News directions in Critical Theory. Columbia Uni. Press, 2014. HERÁCLITO, de Éfeso. Heráclito : fragmentos contextualizados. Tradução, apresentação e comentários Alexandre Costa. – São Paulo : Odysseus Editora, 2012. HEGEL, G. W. F. Fenomenologia do Espírito [Phänomenologie des Geistes]. Tradução de Paulo Meneses; com a colaboração de Karl-Heinz Efken, e José Nogueira Machado. – 5. ed. – Petrópolis, RJ : Vozes : Bragança Paulista, Editora Universitária São Francisco, 2008. MARX, Karl. Das Kapital: Der Produktionprozess des Kapitals. Erster Band, Erstes Buch (Kapitel XVI-LII). Hamburg, Nikol Verlag., 2016. MARX, Karl. Grundrisse: manuscritos econômicos de 1857-1858 : esboços da crítica da economia política. – supervisão editorial Mario Duayer; tradução Mario Duayer, Nélio Schneider (colaboração de Alice Helga Werner e Rudiger Hoffman). – São Paulo : Boitempo; Rio de Janeiro: Ed. UFRJ, 2011. MARX, Karl. Manuscritos econômico-filosóficos. [Ökonomie-philosophische Manuskripte] Tradução, apresentação e notas de Jesus Ranieri. - 2. reimp. - São Paulo : Boitempo Editorial, 2008. MARX, Karl. O Capital – Crítica da Economia Política. Livro 1 – O Processo de Produção do Capital. Vol. I – 10 ª. Edição, Tradução de Reginaldo Sant’ Anna. Do original em alemão: DAS KAPITAL – Kritik der politischen Ökonomie (Buch I: Der Produktionsprozes des Kapitals, Quarta edição, 1890). São Paulo : DIFEL, 1985. MARX, Karl. O Capital – Crítica da Economia Política. Livro 1 – O processo de produção do capital. Do original em alemão: DAS KAPITAL – Kritik der politischen Ökonomie (Buch 1: Der Produktionsprozess des Kapitals. – São Paulo: Boitempo, 2013. NICHOLS, Bill. Ideology and the Image: Social Representation in the Cinema and Other Media. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981.

Abstract This paper tries to interpret Nietzsche’s revaluation of all values as a dialectical structure of Cynicism. Ancient Cynicism is regarded as the thesis, modern cynicism as its antithesis, namely its decadent form. In recent years this decadence has been somewhat overcome by the attempt to underline a new Cynicism, which can be seen as a synthesis.<fnote> I’m well aware that Nietzsche did not appreciate Hegel. But I find this way of presentation quite convincing in the reading of his revaluation as a dialectical structure. And the dialectical structure is not meant in the Hegelian sense, but in the broader sense of the word. Although Nietzsche strongly criticizes Hegel’s dialectic, one can also find ‘dialectical’ features in his philosophy. The three transformations of the spirit in Thus Spoke Zarathustra can be understood as a dialectical structure: The camel that obediently carries the heavy old values is considered the thesis. The lion, which no longer respects the old values and creates only freedom, is considered the antithesis. But only the child can create new values and so the final transformation of the spirit is considered the synthesis. Moreover, Oliver Dier sees an inner dialectical movement in Nietzsche’s doctrine of the eternal recurrence (Oliver Dier, Die Verwandlung der Wiederkunft, in: Nietzsche-Studien, 30 (2001), 133–174). According to Werner Stegmaier, the word “great” in late Nietzsche also has a dialectical sense (Werner Stegmaier, Nietzsches Befreiung der Philosophie. Kontextuelle Interpretation des V. Buchs der ‘Fröhlichen Wissenschaft’, Berlin a. Boston 2012, 29). Roberto Esposito considers Nietzsche’s biopolitics to be “inscribed in the dialectic of immunity and community” (Quoted from Vanessa Lemm, Nietzsche and biopolitics: Four readings of Nietzsche as a biopolitical thinker, in: Sergei Prozorov a. Simona Rentea [eds.], The Routledge Handbook of Biopolitics, New York 2017, 50–65; here: 51).</fnote> I then compare Nietzsche’s revaluation of all values with the coin metaphor of Diogenes. The revaluation is close to Cynicism, both in a literary as well as in a philosophical way. The starting point of the revaluation is obviously Cynical. But Nietzsche takes the will to power much further than the Cynics. I subsequently discuss the danger that the revaluation of all values will result in a cynical nihilism and the way Nietzsche overcomes it with his doctrines of the eternal recurrence and the Übermensch. Finally, the paper concludes with the claim that Nietzsche completes his revaluation with his own Cynicism as a synthesis.

Like Henry Harris, I began doing intensive research on Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit in the mid-sixties. I recall going through all the chapters as a graduate student during one academic year, and looking around for commentaries. The only English-language commentary available was Loewenberg's Hegel's Phenomenology: Dialogues in the Life of Mind, which was suggestive of the dialectic taking place in the book, but not much help in getting over the “rough spots”. This gave me an incentive to work through Jean Hyppolite's commentary, not yet translated into English, with my basic reading-knowledge of French. My 1976 Hegel's Phenomenology, Part I: Analysis and Commentary was one of the first in a long line of Anglophone commentaries. Harris in his introduction to Vol. I. mentions this effort at “analysis”, along with Findlay's “analysis” accompanying the 1977 Miller translation of the Phenomenology, as incentives for the inclusion of his own improved running analysis in the present commentary.I have included discussions of numerous partial or complete commentaries on Hegel's Phenomenology in review articles published in 1971 in the American Philosophical Quarterly and (in Spanish) Teorema, in 1979 in the American Philosophical Quarterly, and in 1981 in Hegel-Studien. Harris has the advantage of producing the most recent of all these commentaries, and in a way offers us a compendium of everything that has been done on the Phenomenology. His analysis and commentary includes a survey of the literature, in which almost all previous laborers in the field can find themselves commended or criticized in the endnotes. Thus I find comments like “Kainz has completely misunderstood the argument here” (I, 312), “This is a point which Kainz has grasped more definitely than most commentators” (I, 315), “[Kainz] does not deserve the brickbat Flay hurls at him” (I, 613), and so forth. Other commentators, living and dead – Flay, Pöggeler, Navickas, Kenneth and Merold Westphal, Heidegger, Lauer, Werner Becker, Kojève, Wahl, Hyppolite, Labarrière, Bonsiepen, Forster, Shklar, Solomon, Werner Marx, and Robert Williams (to name just a few!) — are similarly discussed and critiqued. For some of us Anglophone commentators, such remarks may seem like red marks on essays from a patient professor. But certainly no one will mind, since Harris has spent more time and energy on this very specialized project than any of us. In fact, some former commentators almost have a “conflict of interest” in reviewing Harris' work, since so many of us have benefited at various points in our research from Harris' personal support and criticism. But in academics, as in life, mentors cannot always be assured of loyalty.

Auch wenn die mittelalterliche Literatur bisher kaum aus dem Blickwinkel der Tragik betrachtet worden ist, weil man mit diesem Gattungsbegriff eigentlich nur an klassisch-griechische Werke und <?page nr="337"?>Dramen seit der Renaissance (Shakespeare) denkt, hatte bereits Georg Willhelm Friedrich Hegel in seinen Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik (1817–1839) die Überlegung angestellt, in den Minneromanen des Mittelalters tragische Elemente zu entdecken. Diese Thematik wird nun im vorliegenden Sammelband anhand von Einzelstudien, die zunächst als Vorträge auf einer Tagung im Februar 2012 in Frankfurt gehalten wurden, genauer untersucht, wobei den Beiträgern mehr oder weniger der Nachweis gelingt, dass tragische Stoffe manchmal wohl doch von mittelalterlichen Dichtern gestaltet wurden.

Previous studies contend that Philippines is still a ‘collectivist’ society (Cf. Hofstede Center; Cukur et al. 2004:613-634). In this collectivist or community-oriented society, individualism is not something that is highly valued. Being ‘individualistic’ is often associated to being narcissistic, loner, asocial, selfish, etc. However, one may ask whether the youth in the Philippines are not spared from this insidious culture of individualism, notwithstanding the seemingly dominant collective and communitarian character of the society. Although the overwhelming poverty is still the main problem in the Philippines, where according to Wostyn (2010:26) “only the wonderland of movies gives some respite to their consciousness of suffering and oppression”, the Filipino youth of today are also exposed to the consumeristic values of the ‘city’ and are not spared from the contradictions and insecurities posed by the pluralistic society. They are citizens of an increasing social and cultural pluralism characteristic of many liberal societies. Is it possible that individualism may also exist within this culture, especially among the younger generation? Is individualism slowly creeping in as caused by their exposure and easy access to modern technology, to higher education, mobility, interactions with other cultures, etc. Would this individualistic tendency have any influence on their religious beliefs, especially their belief on salvation? What would be the implications and challenges of these findings to the families in the Philippines? These are the questions we wish to answer in this study. This paper is structured in four parts: first, we will discuss the theoretical framework of individualism and salvation; second, we will examine the empirical attitudes on individualism and salvation; third, we will explore the relationship between individualism and salvation; and finally, we will draw some pastoral implication especially in relation to the document “Lineamenta - The Vocation and Mission of the Family in the church and Contemporary Word” (henceforth, Lineamenta). References Atkins, P. (2004). Memory and Liturgy. The Place of Memory in the Composition and Practice of Liturgy. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing. Bauman, Z. (1993). Postmodern Ethics. Oxford/Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society. London: Sage Publications. Bellah, R. N. , Madsen, R., Sullivan, W., Swidler, A., Tipton, S. (1985). Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press. Berger, P. (1970). A Rumour of Angels: Modern Society and Rediscovery of the Supernatural. New York: Doubleday.Berger, Peter L. (1967). The Sacred Canopy. New York: Anchor Books. Bosch, D. (1995). Believing in the Future. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International. Billiet, J.B. (1995). Church Involvement, individualism, and ethnic prejudice among Flemish Roman Catholics: New evidence of a moderating effect. Journal for the Scientifica Study of Religion, 34, 224-233. Brazal, A. (2004). Reinventing Pakikipagkapwa: An Exploration of Its potential for Promoting Respect for Plurality and Difference. In D. Gonzalez (Ed.), Fundamentalism and Pluralism. Manila: DAKATEO, 50-70. Burnett, G. (2001). Paul and the Salvation of the Individual. Leiden: Brill. Capucao, D. (2010). Religion and Ethnocentrism. Leiden/New York: Brill. Carter, A. (1990). On Individualism, Collectivism and Interrelationism. Heythrop Journal, 23-38. Chaves, Mark. (1994). Secularization as Declining Religious Authority. Social Forces 72, 749-774. Cukur, C. S., De Guzman, Maria Rosario T., and Carlo, Gustavo. (2004). Religiosity, Values, and Horizontal and Vertical Individualism – Collectivism: A Study of Turkey, the United States, and the Philippines. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144(6). Washington, DC: Heldref Publications, Helen Dwight Reid Educational Foundation, 613-634. Curran, Mary Bernard. (2013). Expressive Individualism: A Change in the Idea of the Good and of Happiness. Heythrop Journal. LIV, 978-991. Davie, Grace. (2002). Europe: The Exceptional Case: Parameters of Faith in the Modern World. London: Dartman, Longman, and Todd. De Mesa, J. (1987). In Solidarity with the Culture. : Studies in Theological Re-rooting. Quezon City: Maryhill School of Theology. De Vellis, R.F. (1991). Scale Development: Theory and applications. Newbury, Ca: Sage. Dobbelaere, K. (2001). Individualisation: A Multi-Dimensional Process?. In A. Harskamp & A. Musschenga (Eds.), The Many Faces of Individualism. Leuven: Peeters, 47-61. Doorman, M. (2004): The Romantic Imperative. Amsterdam: Prometheus/Bert Bakker. Dupuis, J. (1999). The Truth Will set you Free. Louvain Studies, 24, 211-263. Duriez, B., Luyten, P. Snauwaert, B., and Hutsebaut, D. (2002). The relative importance of religiosity and value orientations in predicting political attitudes: Empirical evidence for the continuing importance of religiosity in Flanders (Belgium). Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 5, 35-54. Durkheim, Emile. (2009). Sociology and Philosophy. Taylor and Francis. ISBN ISBN 978-0-415-55770-2. Accessed May 8, 2015. Edwards, D.L. (1997). Christianity: The First Two Thousand Years. New York: Orbis books. Ester, P., Halman, L. & De Moor, R. (Eds.). (1994). The Individualizing Society. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press. Federation of Asian Bishop’s Conferences (FABC). Office of the Laity and Family-Youth Desk.(2009). Asian Youth and the Eucharist. A Regional survey 2008. Taytay, Rizal: FABC-OLF-Youth Desk. Fiske, A. (2002). Using Individualism and Collectivism to Compare Cultures – A Critique of the Validity of Measurement of the Constructs: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 128, No. 1, 78-88. Froese, Paul D. (2009). The Plot to Kill God: Findings from the Soviet Experiment in Secularization. Berkeley: University of California Press. Furnham, A. (1990). A content, correlational and factor analysis study of seven questionnaire measures of the Protestant work ethic. Human Relations, 43, 383-399. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and Self-Identity. Cambridge: Polity Press Giddens, A., Beck, U., and Lash, S. (1994). Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Cambridge: Polity Press. Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in Public. London: Allen Lane. Gonzalez, D. (Eds.). (2004). Fundamentalism and Pluralism in the Church. Manila: DAKATEO. Gorospe, V. (1988). Filipino Values Revisited. Manila: National bookstore. Gorski, Philip & Altinordu, A. (2008). After Secularization. Annual Review of Sociology 34:55-85. Gorski, Philip. (2005). The Return of the Repressed: Religion and the Political Unconscious of Historical Sociology. In J. Adams, E. Clemens, and A.Orloff. (Eds.). Remaking Modernity. Durham: Duke University Press. Goizueta, Roberto S. (1991). Democratic Capitalism and the Spirit of Individualism: An Analysis of Thought of Michael Novak. Voices from the Third World: Journal of the Ecumenical Association of Third World Theologians, Volume 14, 147-69. Halman, Loek. (2001). Individualism in Contemporary Europe. In A. Harskamp & A. W. Musschenga. (Eds.). The Many Faces of Individualism. Leuven: Peeters, . 25-45. Harskamp, A.V. & Musschenga, A. (2001). The Many Faces of Individualism. Leuven: Peeters. Heitmeyer, W. (2001). Lack of Recognition: The Socially Destructive Consequences of New Capitalis. In A. V. Harskamp, A.V. & Musschenga, A. (Eds.), The Many Faces of Individualism. Leuven: Peeters. Hellemans, S. (2001). From ‘Cathokicism Against Modernity’ to the Problematic ‘Modernity of Catholicism. Ethical Perspectives 8, 2, 117-127. Hellemans, S. & Wissink, J. (Eds). (2012). Towards a New Catholic Church in Advanced Modernity. Transformations, Visions, Tensions. Zúrich/Múnster: LIT Verlag. Hofstede Center. Philippines. http://geert-hofstede.com/philippines.html. Accessed May 2, 2015. Huismans, S. (1994). The impact of differences in religion on the relation between religiosity and values. In A. Bouvy, F.J.R. van de Vijver, P. Boski, and P. Schmitz (Eds.), Journeys into cross-cultural psychology. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger, 255-268. Ikalwese. (2013). Family, For real? Ppeople and friends,Philippine society,thoughts, Thoughts - Philippines. Blog Entry posted October 24, 2013. Accessed from: https://whenthenailsticksout.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/philippines-japan-collectivism-and-i/. Inglehart, R. & W. Baker (2000). Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of Traditional Values. American Sociological Review, Vol. 65, no. 1, 2000, 81–82. Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and Postmodernization. Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Countries. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Iyengar, Sheena. (2010). The Art of Choosing. New York: Hachette Book Group, 34-35. Jeurissen, R. (1993). Peace & Religion. Kamken Kok Pharos Publishing House. Jocano, F. L. (1992). Issues and Challenges in Filipino Value Formation. Punlad Research Paper No. 1. Series on Filipino Values. Quezon City: Punlad Research House. Jocano, F. L. (1992a). Notion of Value in Filipino Culture. The concept of Pamantayan. Punlad Research Paper No. 2 . Series on Filipino Values. Quezon City: Punlad Research House. Kagitcibasi, C. (1997). Individualism and Collectivism. In J. W. Berry, M.H. Segall, and C. Kagitcibasi (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology Vol. 3. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 1-5. Kerkhofs, J. (1998). Some European Reflections about Individualism. Ethical Perspectives 5, 2, 102-108. Lambert, Y. (2004). A Turning Point in Religious Evolution in Europe. Journal of Contemporary Religion, Vol. 19, no. 1, 29–45. Lane, D. (2011). Stepping stones to other religions: a Christian Theology of Inter-religious Dialogue. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books Luckmann, Th. (1979). Persönliche Identität, Soziale Rolle und Rollendistanz. In O. Marquardt (Ed.), Identität. München: Fink, 293-313. Luhmann, N. (1989). Individuum, Individualität, Individualismus. Gesellschaftsstruktur und Semantik. Studien zur Wissensoziologie, Bd. 3, Frankfurt a.M.:Suhrkamp, 149-259. Mangahas, M & Labucay, I. (2013). “9% of Catholics Sometimes Think of Leaving the Church”, SWS Special Report, 7 April 2013. http://www.sws.org.ph/pr20130407.htm, Accessed: 30 April 2013. Martin, David. (1991). The Secularization Issue: Prospect and Retrospect. British Journal of Sociology 42 (3), 465-74. Menamparampil, T. (2012). Between secularization and Fundamentalism. Omnis Terra. n. 425, XLVI, 143- 155. Miranda, D. (1989). Loob: The Filipino Within. Manila: Divine word Publications. Musschenga, A. (2001). “Introduction. The Many Faces of Individualism,” In Harskamp, A.V. & Musschenga, A. The Many Faces of Individualism. Leuven: Peeters, pp. 3-23. Norris, P. & Inglehart, R. (2004). Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Oyserman, D., Coon H.M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluationof theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3-73. Ponce, R. (2005). Spirituality and quality of Life. An Empirical-Theological Exploration among Filipino Migrants in the Netherlands. Quezon City: Institute of Spirituality in Asia. Pope, Stephen. Expressive Individualism and True Self-Love: A Thomistic Perspective. Journal of Religion, 383-399. Research Hub. “Secularization”. http://wiki.thearda.com/tcm/theories/secularization/. Accessed: 28 May 2015. Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press. Sampson, E.E. (2000). Reinterpreting individualism and collectivism. Their religious roots and monologic versus dialogic person-other relationship. American Psychologist 55, 1425-1432. Schreiter, R. (1997). The New Catholicity. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis. Schroeder, R. (1992). Max Weber and the sociology of culture. Newbury park, London: Sage. Sevilla, C.G., Ochave, J.A., Punsalan, T.G., Regala, B.P., Uriarte, G.G. (1992). Research Methods. Rev. ed. Manila: Rex Bookstore. Singelis, T.M., Triandis, H.C., Bhawuk, D.S., & Gelfand, M. (1995). Horizontal and Vertical dimensions of individualism and Collectivism: A Theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross Cultural Research, 29. Smith, Christian. (2003). The Secular Revolution. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 240-275. Sinha, D. & Tripathi, R.C. (1994). Individualism in a collective culture: A case of coexistence of opposites. Theoretical and methodological approaches to study of collectivism and individualism. In U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, and G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and application. London: Sage, 123-137. Stark, Rodney. (1999). Secularization, R.I.P. Sociology of Religion, vol. 60, no. 3, 249–73. Schwartz, S.H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1-65. Schwartz, S.H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New Cultural Dimensions of Values: Theoretical and Methodological approaches to study of collectivism and invidualism. In U. Kim, H.c. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, and G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism. Theory, method, and application . London: Sage, 85-123. Stark, R. and Bainbridge, W.S. (1985). The future of Religion. Secularization, Revival, and Cult formation. Berkeley. Stark, R. and Bainbridge, W.S. (1987). A Theory of Religion. New York Taylor, Charles. (2007). A Secular Age. Cambridge/London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Taylor, Charles. (1975). Hegel. London/New York: Cambridge University Press. Tschannen, Oliver. (1991). The Secularization Paradigm: A Systematization. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 30, 395-415. Triandis, H.C. (1994). Theoretical and methodological approaches to study of collectivism and individualism. In U. Kin, H.C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, and G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, method, and application. London: Sage, 19-41. Triandis, H.C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview. Triandis, H.C. (1996). The Psychological measurement of cultural syndromes. American Psychologist, 51, 407-415. Triandis, H.C., & Gelfand, M.J. (1998). Converging measurements of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 275-289. Van der Loo, H. & W. Van Reijen. (1993). Paradoxen van modernisering. Muiderberg: Coutinho. Van der Ven, J. (1993). Practical Theology. Kampen: Kok Pharos. Van der Ven, J. (1998). Education for Reflective Ministry. Louvain: Peeters. Veenhoeven, R. (1996). Leefbaarheid van landen. Utrecht: Research Papers Onderzoekschool Arbeid, Welzijn en Sociaal Beleid, nr. 7. Volf, M. (2006). The End of Memory. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans. Walzer, M. (1984). Liberalism and the Art of Separation. Political Theory 12, 315-333. Wostyn, L. (2010). In Search of A Human Jesus. n.p. Ziebertz, H-G. & Kay, W. K. (eds.). (2005). Youth in Europe 1. An International empirical study about Life Perspectives. Münster: LIT.