コンテンツにスキップ

擬人観

出典: フリー百科事典『ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)』
俵屋宗達風神雷神図』(17世紀前半)

姿

 anthropomorphism  personification  personification  anthropomorphism 

[]


[1]

[]


姿[]

[]


宿


[]


[?]

[]


[2][3][4][ 2][9][10][ 3]

[]


姿[12]4[13][14]

[]


[15][ 4]調

 ()11:9

 ()15:29

[]


32,000

使西

19

[]



[]
























SF




[]

 1790

姿

--


[]

(1902)

















Mr.Children




[]


鹿[17][17]

サブカルチャーの擬人化[編集]

Wikipediaを擬人化したウィキペたん



[18]090

[]



[]



の擬人名
の擬人名

注釈[編集]



(一)^ ο θεός

(二)^ 使divinegodGodthe God[5][6]the God[ 1]使[5][6]the God[7]divine[8]

(三)^ the God[11]

(四)^ Moses Maimonides quoted Rabbi Abraham Ben David: "It is stated in the Torah and books of the prophets that God has no body, as stated 'Since G-d your God is the god (lit. gods) in the heavens above and in the earth below" and a body cannot be in both places. And it was said 'Since you have not seen any image' and it was said 'To who would you compare me, and I would be equal to them?' and if he was a body, he would be like the other bodies."[16]

出典[編集]

  1. ^ トム・スタッフォード&マット・ウェッブ 『MIND HACKS:実験で知る脳と心のシステム』夏目大訳 オライリー・ジャパン 2008年、初版第13刷、ISBN 4873112710 pp.299-307.
  2. ^ Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies V xiv 109.1–3
  3. ^ Diels-Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, Xenophanes frr. 15–16.
  4. ^ Gnuse, Robert Karl (1 May 1997). No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel. Sheffield Academic Press. p. 225. ISBN 1-85075-657-0. https://books.google.com/books?id=pBSJNDndGjwC&pg=PA225 
  5. ^ a b Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity, Edited by Polymnia Athanassiadi, Michael Frede, CLARENDON PRESS • OXFORD(1999), pp. 43-44. "the Platonists, the Peripatetics, and the Stoics do not just believe in one highest god, they believe in something which they must take to be unique even as a god. For they call it ‘God’ or even ‘the God’, as if in some crucial way it was the only thing which deserved to be called ‘god’. If, thus, they also believe that there are further beings which can be called ‘divine’ or ‘god’, they must have thought that these further beings could be called ‘divine’ only in some less strict, diminished, or derived sense. Second, the Christians themselves speak not only of the one true God, but also of a plurality of beings which can be called ‘divine’ or ‘god’; for instance, the un-fallen angels or redeemed and saved human beings."
  6. ^ a b Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity, Edited by Polymnia Athanassiadi, Michael Frede, CLARENDON PRESS • OXFORD(1999), p. 49. "As the principle of everything it is, according to Aristotle, the ultimate source of all order and goodness in the world. And Aristotle explicitly attributes unlimited power to it. So when Aristotle talks about the God, he means one particular divine being whose status, even as a divine being, is so unique that it can be called ‘the God’......Even if the order of things envisaged leaves room for beings which can be called ‘divine’, it is clear that they will be so fundamentally derivative and subordinate to the God that, for instance, talk of a ‘highest God’ is in some ways quite misleading. For the relation between a first principle and those things which depend on the principle involves a much more radical subordination than that involved in a pantheon or hierarchy of gods with one god at the apex. A fortiori, the analogy with Zeus is somewhat misleading."
  7. ^ Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity, Edited by Polymnia Athanassiadi, Michael Frede, CLARENDON PRESS • OXFORD(1999), p. 53. "Nevertheless, this clearly means that only Zeus satisfies the criterion for being a god fully, whereas all other gods only satisfy the criterion by not insisting on strict indestructibility, but by accepting a weak form of immortality. It is only in this diminished sense that things other than Zeus can be called ‘god’. More importantly, though, these other gods only exist because the God has created them as part of his creation of the best possible world, in which they are meant to play a certain role. The power they thus have is merely the power to do what the God has fated them to do. They act completely in accordance with the divine plan......It is very clear in their case, even more so than in Aristotle’s, that these further divine beings are radically dependent on the God and only exist because they have a place in the divine order of things. Far from governing the universe or having any independent share in its governance, they only share in the execution of the divine plan; they are not even immortal, strictly speaking. Theirs is a rather tenuous divinity."
  8. ^ Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity, Edited by Polymnia Athanassiadi, Michael Frede, CLARENDON PRESS • OXFORD(1999), p. 54. "So there is one God, but there are also other beings which are called ‘divine’, though they are created, because they are by Divine grace immortal and enjoy a good life. But they only exist as part of God’s creation and they are immortal and hence divine only due to the God’s benevolence or grace, that is to say they owe their very divinity to God. S"
  9. ^ Augustine and the Corporeality of God, Carl W. Griffin and David L. Paulsen, The Harvard Theological Review Vol. 95, No. 1 (Jan., 2002), p. 97, "All of this stands in stark contrast with that Christian theology which developed, primarily under the influence of Platonism, a nonanthropomorphic and incorporeal conception of God that has come to dominate all subsequent theology and philosophy"
  10. ^ Religion, Ethics, and the Meaning of Life, ROLANDO M. GRIPALDO, KEMANUSIAAN 15 (2008), 27–40, p. 28
  11. ^ "Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity, Edited by Polymnia Athanassiadi, Michael Frede, CLARENDON PRESS • OXFORD(1999), p. 51. But the Stoics not only think that all beings are material or corporeal, they also, more specifically, identify God or Zeus with a certain kind of fire which is supposed to be intelligent, active, and creative. So perhaps we have to assume that the Stoics distinguish two aspects of the fiery substance which is Zeus, two aspects, though, which in reality are never separated, namely its divine, creative character, and its material character. Thus God and Zeus are the same to the extent that Zeus is active, creative, intelligent. Now the Stoics also believe that the world is a rational animal that periodically turns entirely into the fiery substance which is Zeus. What happens is that the reason of this animal is itself constituted by this fiery substance, and that this reason slowly consumes and absorbs into itself the soul and the body of the world. Thus, in this state of conflagration, the world, the reason of the world, and Zeus completely coincide."
  12. ^ James Joseph Fox (1907). "Anthropomorphism" . In Herbermann, Charles (ed.). Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. New York: Robert Appleton Company., "The Scriptures themselves amply warn us against the mistake of interpreting their figurative language in too literal a sense. They teach that God is spiritual, omniscient, invisible, omnipresent, ineffable. Insistence upon the literal interpretation of the metaphorical led to the error of the Anthropomorphites."
  13. ^ Augustine and the Corporeality of God, Carl W. Griffin and David L. Paulsen, The Harvard Theological Review Vol. 95, No. 1 (Jan., 2002), p. 108, "Augustine himself clarifies what he means by anthropomorphism/corporealism not being catholic doctrine: "The Catholic faith does not teach what we thought and we were mistaken in criticizing it. The Church's educated men (docti) think it is wrong to believe that God is bounded by the shape of a human body" (Conf.6.11.18).
  14. ^ JESUS AND THE FATHER, Tim Bulkeley, Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 17:2 (2014), pp. 145-147. Gregory of Nyssa, Homily VII In Cantica Canticorum (PG 44: 916B)—“God is not either male or female;” in Greek, the quotation reads: epeide gar oute arren, oute thelu to theion esti;. Jerome, In Esaiam (CCSL 73: 459, 1.82-83)—“There is no sexuality in the Godhead;” in Latin, the quotation reads: In divinitate enim nullus est sexus.
  15. ^ ANTHROPOMORPHISM - JewishEncyclopedia.com”. www.jewishencyclopedia.com. 2022年8月8日閲覧。
  16. ^ Maimonides, Moses, “Fundamentals of Torah, Ch. 1, § 8”, Book of Science 
  17. ^ a b マット・カートミル『人はなぜ殺すか:狩猟仮説と動物観の文明史』 内田亮子訳 新曜社 1995年、ISBN 4-7885-0537-1 第9章
  18. ^ “漫画・アニメに擬人化ブーム 物の形残さず、性格で表現”. asahi.com (朝日新聞社). (2010年10月3日). http://www.asahi.com/national/update/0930/OSK201009290183.html 2010年10月3日閲覧。 

参考文献[編集]

  • 大修館書店『レトリック事典』 擬人表現の項より
  • 学習研究社 内山安二著 『まんがかき方入門』

など

関連項目[編集]