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.

Leo Strauss affirme avoir redécouvert l’art d’écrire oublié des philosophes du passé. Il s’agit d’une technique littéraire consistant en un discours de prime abord orthodoxe - c'est le niveau ou l'enseignement exotérique d'un texte -, mais qui communique « entre les lignes » la pensée véritable de l’écrivain, de nature hétérodoxe - c'est le niveau ou l'enseignement ésotérique. La lecture de tels auteurs requiert donc une herméneutique adaptée, permettant de saisir l’écart entre l’évidence de ce qu’affichent les écrits de l’auteur, et la vérité secrètement distillée derrière la lettre de ses écrits. Cette méthode de lecture est le point d’orgue de travaux entrepris par Strauss dès les années 1920. Elle est formalisée à la fin des années 30, et accompagne une mutation de l’écriture de l’auteur. Les travaux traitant de cette partie de l’œuvre du philosophe consistent généralement d’une part à critiquer sa clé herméneutique, en confirmant ou en infirmant sa pertinence, ou d’autre part à envisager la portée politique et philosophique de l’exo/ésotérisme. Les études s’attachant à comprendre la construction de ce prisme de lecture à travers le parcours intellectuel de Strauss demeurent sauf exception relativement parcellaires, et s’attachent à éclairer l’art d’écrire en le rattachant à certaines références. Les examens se focalisant sur la façon dont l’exo/ésotérisme se forme au fil du corpus straussien affleurent depuis quelques années, et c’est notamment au sein de ce champ de recherche que se situe la thèse. Au-delà, il s’agit de porter l’attention sur le propre style de Strauss, en se concentrant précisément sur la façon dont il conçoit et fait usage des catégories de l’exotérique et de l’ésotérique. La façon dont l’auteur s’en empare et le rôle qu’elles jouent dans l’économie de sa pensée peut renseigner quant à la façon de le lire et de le comprendre. Revenir aux sources de l’art d’écrire, examiner sa formation et observer son emploi par Strauss lui-même permet ainsi de donner un éclairage nouveau sur la thèse controversée de l’écriture entre les lignes des philosophes. / Leo Strauss asserts having rediscovered the lost art of writing of philosophers of past. It is a literary technique consisting of a speech at first sight orthodox - it is the exoteric teaching or level of a text -, but which communicates "between lines" the real thought of the writer, heterodox in nature - it is the esoteric teaching or level of the speech. The reading of such authors thus requires an adapted hermeneutics, allowing to seize the gap enter the obvious fact of what show obviously the text of the author, and the truth secretly distilled behind the letter of its papers. This method of reading is the climax of works begun by Strauss from the 1920s. It is formalized at the end of the 30s, and appears with some modifications of the style of writing of the author.The studies dealing with this part of the work of the philosopher consist generally on one hand in criticizing his hermeneutic key, by confirming or by countering its relevance, or on the other hand to envisage the political and philosophic impact of the exo/esotericism. The studies attempting to understand the construction of this prism of reading through the intellectual course of Strauss remain allowing exception relatively fragmented, and attempt to highlight the art of writing by connecting it with certain references. The examinations focusing on the way the exo/esotericism forms in the course of the straussian corpus appear since a few years, and it is in particular within this field of research that is situated this thesis. Beyond, it pays attention on the own style of Strauss, by concentrating exactly on the way he conceives and makes use of categories of the exoteric and of the esoteric. The way the author seizes it and the role which they play in the economy of its thought can inform as for the way of reading it and understand his thought. Returning to the sources of the art of writing, examining its formation and observe its use by Strauss himself can give a new lighting onto the controversial theory of the writing between lines of philosophers.

Zugl.: Lille, Univ. Charles-de-Gaulle, Diss., 2004