Icônes humanistes mondiales, Gandhi, Luther King et le Dalaï Lama ont une caractéristique commune : mettre le religieux –envisagé à partir du ''spirituel''– au coeur de leur démarche politique. De quoi singulariser ces ''spirituels engagés'' au sein de l'espace libéral, qui tend à cloisonner le religieux et le politique, surtout en France. Pourtant, des figures politiques du XXe siècle y partagent un certain air de famille avec ces leaders démocratiques originaux, dont Gandhi est le modèle. En effet, parmi bien d'autres (Péguy, Mounier, S. Weil, etc.), trois philosophes contemporains –le socialiste Jaurès (1859-1914), le néothomiste Maritain (1882-1973) et le non-violent Lanza del Vasto (1901-1981)– mettent aussi le ''spirituel'' au centre de leur parcours, même s'ils l'abordent différemment du fait de rapports différents à la religion dominante, le catholicisme. Loin d'une juxtaposition de trois monographies, cette thèse étudie ces cas afin de définir le ''spirituel', terme courant rarement précisé. Elle le conceptualise comme le ''souci du lien avec la réalité ultime'' (l'Absolu, l'Infini, ''Dieu'' pour les croyants), en détaille les effets objectifs (théoriques et pratiques) sur ces ''mystiques militants'' et typifie ceux-ci au sein d'un courant démocratique spécifique, ''spirituel-démocrate''. Peu étudiés jusqu'ici, ces effets sont si déterminants qu'ils impliquent la constitution du ''spirituel'' en catégorie anthropologique, entraînant une re-définition simultanée du politique et du religieux. Ce dernier, ainsi requalifié par le ''spirituel'', peut alors trouver droit de cité dans l'espace public libéral. Et la Théorie politique, l'opportunité d'un nouveau paradigme. / As global humanist icons, Gandhi, M. L. King Jr. and the Dalai Lama show a common feature : they put religion – seen from its spiritual core – at the heart of their political action. It is then meaningful to single out these spiritual and democratic leaders from the liberal political sphere, where religion and politics tend to be separated, specially in France. Yet, in this country, some political figures of the last century show a kind of family likeness with those original leaders, all of them inspired by Gandhi. Among many others (Péguy, Mounier, S. Weil...), three contemporary philosophers – Socialist J. Jaurès (1859-1914), Neo-Thomist J. Maritain (1882-1973) and Peace activist Lanza del Vasto (1901-1981) – also base their approach on a spiritual ground, in spite of their differences due to their own specific relationship with catholicism, the french predominant religion. Without wandering to historical and biographic details, this doctoral thesis is studying these cases in order to define the ''Spiritual'', which is rarely done. Here, this word is conceptualized as the ''concern of the link with the ultimate reality'' (the Absolute, the Infinite, God for the believers) ; and its objective effects (theoretical and practical) on our ''commited mystics'' are scrutinized, then characterized inside a specific democratic trend. These effects are so decisive that they imply to recognize the ''Spiritual'' as an anthropological category, entailing a simultaneous redifining of the Political and the Religious. The latter, thus being requalified through the ''Spiritual'', can also be admitted in the liberal public sphere, while Political theory can find a new scientific paradigm.

斯賓諾莎的《神學政治論》向來被認為是現代自由民主、與聖經批判的哲學性起源，學者大多認為斯賓諾莎以一種科學式的方法來研究聖經。本文旨在研究斯賓諾莎的聖經觀與宗教觀。藉著對十七世紀荷蘭神學－政治背景、以及《神學政治論》第七章到第十五章的分析，來說明斯賓諾莎所關心的並不是「如何解釋聖經」，而是「誰有權釋經」。他並不是藉著一種客觀的方法論來研究聖經，而是將解釋聖經的判准建立在解釋者的德性之上。而後不斷質疑各種可能形成解釋權威、壟斷信仰的科學式或理論性宗教知識。他把信仰的本質還原為生活，並且主張唯有解釋者有道德行為，他對聖經的解釋才可能是真的。因此，斯賓諾莎解釋聖經的方式不是一種聖經批判，而是一種德性證成的觀點。藉此，他把解釋聖經的權利還諸一切信仰者，並且將哲學與神學分離，前者的基礎是思辨理論，後者的基礎是道德實踐。 / Spinoza's Tractatus Theologico-Politicus has always been regarded as the philosophical origin of modern liberal democracy and modern biblical criticism. Most scholars consider Spinoza’s biblical study as a kind of scientific method. This thesis aims at Spinoza’s view of the Bible and his view of religion. By a description of the theological-political background of the 17th century Dutch, and an analysis of Tractatus Theologico-Politicus Chapters 7 through 15, I would demonstrate that Spinoza cares not “how to study the Scripture” but “who has the authority to interpret the Scripture.” He does not study the Scripture by means of an objective methodology, rather, he sets up the criteria of biblical interpretation upon the virtue of interpreters. Then he doubts constantly every kind of theoretical knowledge of religion which may become the authority of interpretation and monopolize the faith. He reduces the essence of faith to life, and claims that only when an interpreter is moral, can his interpretation of the Scripture be true. Therefore, Spinoza’s interpretation of the Bible is not a kind of biblical-criticism, but a kind of justification by means of virtue. By doing so (or simply “Thus”), he returns the right of interpreting Scripture back to all believers, and separates philosophy away from theology. The foundation of philosophy is speculative theory, and theology is based on moral practices.

In this thesis I compare the views of Joseph de Maistre and Fyodor Dostoyevsky with regard to the relation between modernity and the theologico-political problem. I integrate this comparison within the general context of the reflection concerning modernity and the theologico-political problem, as well as within the context of two Christian theological traditions, Catholic and Orthodox, on the basis of which the two authors develop their religious and political thought. In particular, I analyze the views of the two authors with regard to the origins and the defining traits of modernity. Likewise, I present their opinions concerning the consequences which are inherent in the modern project. Viewing modernity first and foremost as an attempt to build a secular world that would define itself by its opposition to what both authors regard as authentic Christianity, Maistre and Dostoyevsky emphasize the fact that, having theological origins that mark the totality of its becoming, modernity should be understood on the basis of a theologico-political reflection. Associating the modern ambition to build a secular world with the fate of the biblical Tower of Babel, both authors adopt a prophetic posture, announcing the collapse of the modern project as well as the ultimate eschatological resolution of the modern crisis. Yet, the two authors are differentiated by their interpretations of the relation between modernity and the theologico-political problem, identifying differently the theological origins of the modern crisis. In this sense, while according to Maistre modernity originates in the Protestant Reformation, for Dostoyevsky, modernity’s origins must be located in the transformations of Western Christianity that have finally lead to the latter’s separation from Eastern Orthodoxy. These differences of interpretation lead to the articulation of two different responses to the modern crisis, which are rooted in two different Christian theological traditions. Consequently, if in reaction to the modern crisis Maistre affirms the Catholic principle of authority, whose highest expression is the concept of papal infallibility, Dostoyevsky opposes to this crisis the Orthodox principle of brotherhood in Christ. The critique of modernity culminates in the thought of the two authors with an approach of the complex and troubling problem of theodicy, which, Maistre and Dostoyevsky believe, stands at the origin of the modern opposition to Christianity and its traditional institutions.

In this thesis I compare the views of Joseph de Maistre and Fyodor Dostoyevsky with regard to the relation between modernity and the theologico-political problem. I integrate this comparison within the general context of the reflection concerning modernity and the theologico-political problem, as well as within the context of two Christian theological traditions, Catholic and Orthodox, on the basis of which the two authors develop their religious and political thought. In particular, I analyze the views of the two authors with regard to the origins and the defining traits of modernity. Likewise, I present their opinions concerning the consequences which are inherent in the modern project. Viewing modernity first and foremost as an attempt to build a secular world that would define itself by its opposition to what both authors regard as authentic Christianity, Maistre and Dostoyevsky emphasize the fact that, having theological origins that mark the totality of its becoming, modernity should be understood on the basis of a theologico-political reflection. Associating the modern ambition to build a secular world with the fate of the biblical Tower of Babel, both authors adopt a prophetic posture, announcing the collapse of the modern project as well as the ultimate eschatological resolution of the modern crisis. Yet, the two authors are differentiated by their interpretations of the relation between modernity and the theologico-political problem, identifying differently the theological origins of the modern crisis. In this sense, while according to Maistre modernity originates in the Protestant Reformation, for Dostoyevsky, modernity’s origins must be located in the transformations of Western Christianity that have finally lead to the latter’s separation from Eastern Orthodoxy. These differences of interpretation lead to the articulation of two different responses to the modern crisis, which are rooted in two different Christian theological traditions. Consequently, if in reaction to the modern crisis Maistre affirms the Catholic principle of authority, whose highest expression is the concept of papal infallibility, Dostoyevsky opposes to this crisis the Orthodox principle of brotherhood in Christ. The critique of modernity culminates in the thought of the two authors with an approach of the complex and troubling problem of theodicy, which, Maistre and Dostoyevsky believe, stands at the origin of the modern opposition to Christianity and its traditional institutions.