Johannes Hoff
Johannes Hoff is Professor of Dogmatics at the Institute of Systematic Theology of the Faculty of Catholic Theology in Innsbruck. He is also Senior Research Associate at the van Hügel Institute of the University of Cambridge and Honorary Professor at the University of Durham. Previously he was Professor of Philosophical Theology at Heythrop College of the University of London and at Saint David's College of the University of Wales, as well as Assistant at the Chair of Fundamental Theology of the Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen.
Hoff has been regularly involved in cross-disciplinary and cross-cultural research projects that focus on the significance of the philosophical and theological tradition for the post-confessional societies of our present time. This research aims to recover the intellectual and spiritual tools of premodern traditions as a means to create a ‘providential cultural laboratory’ for the future.
In his earliest publications Hoff engaged with bioethical questions. A related book publication, together with the professor of medicine Jürgen in der Schmitten, was awarded as “Wissenschaftsbuch des Jahres” (Scientific book of the year) in 1994 (“Wann ist der Mensch tot?”). His first academic monograph appeared under the Title Spiritualität und Sprachverlust in 1999 (Spirituality and the Loss of Language) and engaged with the theological implications of the work of Jürgen Habermas, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, and Michel de Certeau. His second monograph on Nicholas of Cusa appeared under the title Kontingenz, Berührung, Überschreitung (Contingency, Tangency, Exceeding) in 2007. It drew upon the hermeneutical methods of the former monograph and developed a philosophical re-interpretation of the mystagogical thinking of the Renaissance philosopher Nicholas of Cusa. This re-interpretation had two aims: Firstly, to retrieve the unity of spiritual practices, science and culture found in pre-modern concepts of rationality; secondly, it aimed to develop a more ‘continental’, phenomenological approach to the recent 'Ressourcement' movement of Anglophone theology.
Hoff’s first English speaking monograph, The Analogical Turn: Rethinking Modernity with Nicholas of Cusa (2013), brought his hitherto separate research projects on post-modernity and the Renaissance transition to modernity together. In this book, Hoff shows how Cusa developed an early response to the uncritical celebration of mathematically generated ‘pictures of the world’ in early modern art and science, and the related modern obsession with immersive virtual spaces. Later this book became the topic of various (on- and offline) symposia. It has firmly established Hoff’s position in contemporary discussions on the genealogy and future of our modern concepts of science and culture. Yet, it has also provoked a new interest in the significance of Nikolas of Cusa for the doctrinal teaching of Christian theology (e.g. Christology, Trinity, Ecclesiology, and Pneumatology) and drawn attention to the ‘performative’ features of his theology – the gradual actualisation of truth whilst speaking and acting. The concept of performativity was already a key to Hoff’s earlier writings on Derrida and Foucault. In line with this leitmotif, many of his later publications, which frequently emerged out of his collaboration with representatives of contemporary art (Simon Njami, Christoph Schlingensief, Venice Biennale 2011, Bayreuth Festival 2011, et al.), focus on the tradition of spiritually shaped ‘performance practices’ – from Augustine (2009) and Dante (2014) to Hugo Ball (2012) and Christoph Schlingensief (2010).
Most recently, Hoff has extended his research on the impoverished ‘digital rationality’ of our modern ‘world-picture’ to the digital revolutions that are currently transforming our life world with unforeseeable consequences. In his related publications, he has started to develop a ‘sacramental anthropology’. This anthropology synthesizes the premodern teaching on symbolically charged ‘sacramental’ objects with contemporary discussions on the philosophy of technology. Following the ground-breaking research of Bernard Stiegler, Hoff argues that ‘magic objects’, artifices and technological devices are an essential feature of our animal nature, and that the phenomenon of ‘hybridisation’ is as old as the history of humanity. Alongside this research, Hoff has widely collaborated with colleagues from other disciplines such as computer science, information ethics, philosophy of media and technology, management and economics, psychology, and architecture/urban planning.
Hoff has been regularly involved in cross-disciplinary and cross-cultural research projects that focus on the significance of the philosophical and theological tradition for the post-confessional societies of our present time. This research aims to recover the intellectual and spiritual tools of premodern traditions as a means to create a ‘providential cultural laboratory’ for the future.
In his earliest publications Hoff engaged with bioethical questions. A related book publication, together with the professor of medicine Jürgen in der Schmitten, was awarded as “Wissenschaftsbuch des Jahres” (Scientific book of the year) in 1994 (“Wann ist der Mensch tot?”). His first academic monograph appeared under the Title Spiritualität und Sprachverlust in 1999 (Spirituality and the Loss of Language) and engaged with the theological implications of the work of Jürgen Habermas, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, and Michel de Certeau. His second monograph on Nicholas of Cusa appeared under the title Kontingenz, Berührung, Überschreitung (Contingency, Tangency, Exceeding) in 2007. It drew upon the hermeneutical methods of the former monograph and developed a philosophical re-interpretation of the mystagogical thinking of the Renaissance philosopher Nicholas of Cusa. This re-interpretation had two aims: Firstly, to retrieve the unity of spiritual practices, science and culture found in pre-modern concepts of rationality; secondly, it aimed to develop a more ‘continental’, phenomenological approach to the recent 'Ressourcement' movement of Anglophone theology.
Hoff’s first English speaking monograph, The Analogical Turn: Rethinking Modernity with Nicholas of Cusa (2013), brought his hitherto separate research projects on post-modernity and the Renaissance transition to modernity together. In this book, Hoff shows how Cusa developed an early response to the uncritical celebration of mathematically generated ‘pictures of the world’ in early modern art and science, and the related modern obsession with immersive virtual spaces. Later this book became the topic of various (on- and offline) symposia. It has firmly established Hoff’s position in contemporary discussions on the genealogy and future of our modern concepts of science and culture. Yet, it has also provoked a new interest in the significance of Nikolas of Cusa for the doctrinal teaching of Christian theology (e.g. Christology, Trinity, Ecclesiology, and Pneumatology) and drawn attention to the ‘performative’ features of his theology – the gradual actualisation of truth whilst speaking and acting. The concept of performativity was already a key to Hoff’s earlier writings on Derrida and Foucault. In line with this leitmotif, many of his later publications, which frequently emerged out of his collaboration with representatives of contemporary art (Simon Njami, Christoph Schlingensief, Venice Biennale 2011, Bayreuth Festival 2011, et al.), focus on the tradition of spiritually shaped ‘performance practices’ – from Augustine (2009) and Dante (2014) to Hugo Ball (2012) and Christoph Schlingensief (2010).
Most recently, Hoff has extended his research on the impoverished ‘digital rationality’ of our modern ‘world-picture’ to the digital revolutions that are currently transforming our life world with unforeseeable consequences. In his related publications, he has started to develop a ‘sacramental anthropology’. This anthropology synthesizes the premodern teaching on symbolically charged ‘sacramental’ objects with contemporary discussions on the philosophy of technology. Following the ground-breaking research of Bernard Stiegler, Hoff argues that ‘magic objects’, artifices and technological devices are an essential feature of our animal nature, and that the phenomenon of ‘hybridisation’ is as old as the history of humanity. Alongside this research, Hoff has widely collaborated with colleagues from other disciplines such as computer science, information ethics, philosophy of media and technology, management and economics, psychology, and architecture/urban planning.
less
InterestsView All (20)
Uploads
Papers by Johannes Hoff
Abstract: The term Anthropocene describes an age in which there is no longer an external perspective that would allow us to look at the 'blue planet' as uninvolved observers. This impossibility marks an epochal break that shakes the foundations of the subject-object dualism of modernity. The disorientation caused by this break becomes nowhere more evident than in the crisis of classic modern, utilitarian and deontological concepts ethics, which oscillate between egoistic self-interest and altruistic self-sacrifice. The aporetic features of this ethical dichotomy can be seen in the aporias of modern philosophies of friendship. Against this background, the following text takes up the pre-modern virtue-ethical philosophy of friendship and shows how the quest for a good (eudemonic) life, which was fundamental to this way of thinking, allows people to live in harmony with themselves and their creator. Starting from Spike Jonze's science fiction film Her, the result of this excursion into the tradition of pre-modern philosophy is exemplified by a key question of our time: What distinguishes a real friend from a simulated one?
und Theologen Johannes Hoff über unheilige Handys,
sorglose Computer und digitalen Götzendienst sprechen.
Thanks to the support of the University of Innsbruck, the print version of this text is available online. See
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/moth.12940
zeigt sich, warum Künstliche Intelligenz nicht wirklich
„intelligent“ ist. Eine philosophisch-technische Analyse.
EINER TECHNISCH DOMINIERTEN WELT EIN NEUES GEWICHT? JOHANNES HOFF ERÖFFNET ÜBERRASCHENDE EINBLICKE IN DIE BEDEUTUNG DER RELIGION IN DIESER NEUEN ZEIT.
- -L --·
,,_ ;/
Was erlaubt uns in einem von Selfies überfluteten globalen Dorf
noch, zu einem unverwechselbaren Ebenbild Gottes zu werden?*
Abstract: In den letzten Jahrhunderten oszillierte unsere moderne Welt zwischen dem Glauben an entzauberte Strategien der bürokratischen Kontrolle und Überwachung und der Begeisterung für ikonoklastische Brüche, die unser Gefühl von Freiheit und Würde bestärkten. Doch das Gleichgewicht zwischen diesen Polen ist nach der Jahrtausendwende verloren gegangen. Während wir in den Sog digitaler Kontrolltechnologien gerieten, hat die Implementierung digitaler Technologien in unser Alltagsleben die ikonoklastische Überzeugung untergraben, dass Artefakte lediglich Werkzeuge seien. Unsere Smartphones haben ein „magisches Eigenleben“. Diese Herausforderung verlangt uns ab, zwischen idolatrischen Anhänglichkeiten und einem weisen Umgang mit „magischen Objekten“ zu unterscheiden, der unserem natürlichen Verlangen nach einem guten Leben förderlich ist. Der folgende Essay geht der Frage nach, inwieweit die Grundüberzeugungen der konfessionalisierten Religionen des Gutenbergzeitalters von der Aufgabe ablenken, sich dieser Herausforderung zu stellen. Darüber hinaus stellt er die moderne Neigung in Frage, den alltäglichen Umgang mit
Exemplarisch für eine Position, die diese onto-theologische Dichotomie unterläuft, ist der Gottesbegriffs Thomas von Aquinas. Nordhofens Meditationen über den Gott des brennenden Dornbuschs (3:14) stehen dieser Position nahe. Doch seine Definition der ‚Seinfülle‘ Gottes widersteht der christlich-platonischen Tendenz des Aquinaten, das Verhältnis zwischen Schöpfer und Geschöpf als Partizipationsverhältnis zu deuten. In Übereinstimmung mit den Entzauberungsnarrativen der klassischen Moderne lässt er das ‚jüdische-christliche Aufklärungsprogamm‘ vielmehr mit einer ‚Entmystifikation‘ unseres geschöpflichen Seins zusammenfallen. Für ein theophanisches Teilhabeverhältnis zwischen Kosmischem und Göttlichem scheint da wenig Spielraum zu bleiben.
Doch Nordhofens Position ist weniger eindeutig als es den Anschein hat. Auf der einen Seite übernimmt er die Religionskritik neuzeitlicher Aufklärungsnarrative, die den ‚Fortschritt der Menschheit‘ mit der Überweindung naturreligiöser, heidnischer Kult- und Opferpraktiken zusammenfallen lassen. Auf der anderen Seite durchkreuzt sein Denken den in der Subjektmetaphysik der Moderne kulminierenden, postreformatorischen Traum von einer Gottunmittelbarkeit, die ohne Formen kultisch-medialer Vermittlung auskommt. Der christliche Kult ist für Nordhofen unhintergehbar. Es fragt sich dann aber, ob seine Kritik naturreligiöser Kult- und Opferpraktiken nicht – wie bereits Jan Assmann angemerkt hat – über ihr Ziel hinausschießt. Lässt sich die ‚logike latreia‘ des christlichen Kults gegen die Kontamination durch heidnische Opferpraktiken abschirmen, ohne der reformatorischen Versuchung zu erliegen, die sakramentale Vermittlungsfunktion des christlichen Kults als sekundär erscheinen zu lassen? Nordhofen hat in dieser konfessionellen Debatte immer klar Position bezogen. Möglicherweise lässt sich diese Position aber noch präziser fassen – z.B. unter Anknüpfung an das, was Jaroslav Pelikan in seinen berühmten Gifford Lectures von 1992 als The Metamorphosis of Natural Theology in the Christian Encounter with Hellenism bezeichnete.
The cosmic fullness of being of the 'great counterpart'. Anarchic reflections on the pagan scents of Christian incense offerings.
In his theological work, Eckhard Nordhofen has raised the flag of biblical theism with impressive clarity. Unimpressed by the monistic and pantheistic fashions of late modernity, the biblical God JHWH remains the 'great counterpart'. From the point of view of recent Anglophone research, however, the question arises to what extent the strong accent on the 'great counterpart' exaggerates the ontological difference between cosmic and divine being and thereby runs the risk of getting stuck in the modern dichotomy between a 'theistic' and 'monistic' concept of God.
Exemplary for a position that undermines this onto-theological dichotomy is Thomas Aquinas' concept of God. Nordhofen's meditations on the God of the burning bush (3:14) are close to this position. But his definition of God's 'fullness of being' resists the Christian-Platonic tendency of Aquinas to interpret the relationship between Creator and creature as a participatory relationship. In accordance with the disenchantment narratives of classical modernity, he rather lets the 'Jewish-Christian Enlightenment Programme' coincide with a 'demystification' of our created being. This seems to leave little room for a theophanic, participatory relationship between the cosmic and the divine.
However, Nordhofen's position is less clear than it seems. On the one hand, he adopts the critique of religion of modern Enlightenment narratives, in which the 'progress of mankind' coincided with the overcoming of natural-religious, pagan cults and sacrificial practices. On the other hand, his thinking thwarts the post-Reformation dream of an unmediated relationship to God, which culminated in the modern metaphysics of subjectivity. For Nordhofen, the Christian cult is inescapable. Against this background it might be asked whether his criticism of natural-religious cult and sacrificial practices does not - as Jan Assmann has already noted - overshoot its goal. Can the 'logike latreia' of the Christian cult be shielded against the contamination by pagan sacrificial practices without succumbing to the protestant temptation to make the mediating function of the Christian cult appear secondary? Nordhofen has always taken a clear position in this confessional debate. But perhaps this position can be formulated even more precisely - e.g. by referring to what Jaroslav Pelikan described in his famous Gifford Lectures of 1992 as The Metamorphosis of Natural Theology in the Christian Encounter with Hellenism.
Abstract: The term Anthropocene describes an age in which there is no longer an external perspective that would allow us to look at the 'blue planet' as uninvolved observers. This impossibility marks an epochal break that shakes the foundations of the subject-object dualism of modernity. The disorientation caused by this break becomes nowhere more evident than in the crisis of classic modern, utilitarian and deontological concepts ethics, which oscillate between egoistic self-interest and altruistic self-sacrifice. The aporetic features of this ethical dichotomy can be seen in the aporias of modern philosophies of friendship. Against this background, the following text takes up the pre-modern virtue-ethical philosophy of friendship and shows how the quest for a good (eudemonic) life, which was fundamental to this way of thinking, allows people to live in harmony with themselves and their creator. Starting from Spike Jonze's science fiction film Her, the result of this excursion into the tradition of pre-modern philosophy is exemplified by a key question of our time: What distinguishes a real friend from a simulated one?
und Theologen Johannes Hoff über unheilige Handys,
sorglose Computer und digitalen Götzendienst sprechen.
Thanks to the support of the University of Innsbruck, the print version of this text is available online. See
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/moth.12940
zeigt sich, warum Künstliche Intelligenz nicht wirklich
„intelligent“ ist. Eine philosophisch-technische Analyse.
EINER TECHNISCH DOMINIERTEN WELT EIN NEUES GEWICHT? JOHANNES HOFF ERÖFFNET ÜBERRASCHENDE EINBLICKE IN DIE BEDEUTUNG DER RELIGION IN DIESER NEUEN ZEIT.
- -L --·
,,_ ;/
Was erlaubt uns in einem von Selfies überfluteten globalen Dorf
noch, zu einem unverwechselbaren Ebenbild Gottes zu werden?*
Abstract: In den letzten Jahrhunderten oszillierte unsere moderne Welt zwischen dem Glauben an entzauberte Strategien der bürokratischen Kontrolle und Überwachung und der Begeisterung für ikonoklastische Brüche, die unser Gefühl von Freiheit und Würde bestärkten. Doch das Gleichgewicht zwischen diesen Polen ist nach der Jahrtausendwende verloren gegangen. Während wir in den Sog digitaler Kontrolltechnologien gerieten, hat die Implementierung digitaler Technologien in unser Alltagsleben die ikonoklastische Überzeugung untergraben, dass Artefakte lediglich Werkzeuge seien. Unsere Smartphones haben ein „magisches Eigenleben“. Diese Herausforderung verlangt uns ab, zwischen idolatrischen Anhänglichkeiten und einem weisen Umgang mit „magischen Objekten“ zu unterscheiden, der unserem natürlichen Verlangen nach einem guten Leben förderlich ist. Der folgende Essay geht der Frage nach, inwieweit die Grundüberzeugungen der konfessionalisierten Religionen des Gutenbergzeitalters von der Aufgabe ablenken, sich dieser Herausforderung zu stellen. Darüber hinaus stellt er die moderne Neigung in Frage, den alltäglichen Umgang mit
Exemplarisch für eine Position, die diese onto-theologische Dichotomie unterläuft, ist der Gottesbegriffs Thomas von Aquinas. Nordhofens Meditationen über den Gott des brennenden Dornbuschs (3:14) stehen dieser Position nahe. Doch seine Definition der ‚Seinfülle‘ Gottes widersteht der christlich-platonischen Tendenz des Aquinaten, das Verhältnis zwischen Schöpfer und Geschöpf als Partizipationsverhältnis zu deuten. In Übereinstimmung mit den Entzauberungsnarrativen der klassischen Moderne lässt er das ‚jüdische-christliche Aufklärungsprogamm‘ vielmehr mit einer ‚Entmystifikation‘ unseres geschöpflichen Seins zusammenfallen. Für ein theophanisches Teilhabeverhältnis zwischen Kosmischem und Göttlichem scheint da wenig Spielraum zu bleiben.
Doch Nordhofens Position ist weniger eindeutig als es den Anschein hat. Auf der einen Seite übernimmt er die Religionskritik neuzeitlicher Aufklärungsnarrative, die den ‚Fortschritt der Menschheit‘ mit der Überweindung naturreligiöser, heidnischer Kult- und Opferpraktiken zusammenfallen lassen. Auf der anderen Seite durchkreuzt sein Denken den in der Subjektmetaphysik der Moderne kulminierenden, postreformatorischen Traum von einer Gottunmittelbarkeit, die ohne Formen kultisch-medialer Vermittlung auskommt. Der christliche Kult ist für Nordhofen unhintergehbar. Es fragt sich dann aber, ob seine Kritik naturreligiöser Kult- und Opferpraktiken nicht – wie bereits Jan Assmann angemerkt hat – über ihr Ziel hinausschießt. Lässt sich die ‚logike latreia‘ des christlichen Kults gegen die Kontamination durch heidnische Opferpraktiken abschirmen, ohne der reformatorischen Versuchung zu erliegen, die sakramentale Vermittlungsfunktion des christlichen Kults als sekundär erscheinen zu lassen? Nordhofen hat in dieser konfessionellen Debatte immer klar Position bezogen. Möglicherweise lässt sich diese Position aber noch präziser fassen – z.B. unter Anknüpfung an das, was Jaroslav Pelikan in seinen berühmten Gifford Lectures von 1992 als The Metamorphosis of Natural Theology in the Christian Encounter with Hellenism bezeichnete.
The cosmic fullness of being of the 'great counterpart'. Anarchic reflections on the pagan scents of Christian incense offerings.
In his theological work, Eckhard Nordhofen has raised the flag of biblical theism with impressive clarity. Unimpressed by the monistic and pantheistic fashions of late modernity, the biblical God JHWH remains the 'great counterpart'. From the point of view of recent Anglophone research, however, the question arises to what extent the strong accent on the 'great counterpart' exaggerates the ontological difference between cosmic and divine being and thereby runs the risk of getting stuck in the modern dichotomy between a 'theistic' and 'monistic' concept of God.
Exemplary for a position that undermines this onto-theological dichotomy is Thomas Aquinas' concept of God. Nordhofen's meditations on the God of the burning bush (3:14) are close to this position. But his definition of God's 'fullness of being' resists the Christian-Platonic tendency of Aquinas to interpret the relationship between Creator and creature as a participatory relationship. In accordance with the disenchantment narratives of classical modernity, he rather lets the 'Jewish-Christian Enlightenment Programme' coincide with a 'demystification' of our created being. This seems to leave little room for a theophanic, participatory relationship between the cosmic and the divine.
However, Nordhofen's position is less clear than it seems. On the one hand, he adopts the critique of religion of modern Enlightenment narratives, in which the 'progress of mankind' coincided with the overcoming of natural-religious, pagan cults and sacrificial practices. On the other hand, his thinking thwarts the post-Reformation dream of an unmediated relationship to God, which culminated in the modern metaphysics of subjectivity. For Nordhofen, the Christian cult is inescapable. Against this background it might be asked whether his criticism of natural-religious cult and sacrificial practices does not - as Jan Assmann has already noted - overshoot its goal. Can the 'logike latreia' of the Christian cult be shielded against the contamination by pagan sacrificial practices without succumbing to the protestant temptation to make the mediating function of the Christian cult appear secondary? Nordhofen has always taken a clear position in this confessional debate. But perhaps this position can be formulated even more precisely - e.g. by referring to what Jaroslav Pelikan described in his famous Gifford Lectures of 1992 as The Metamorphosis of Natural Theology in the Christian Encounter with Hellenism.
What we can Learn from the Past in the Quest for Democratisation
Presented in Rome, 29/10/2018
by Johannes Hoff