that needs further consideration, which I will do in section 4.4 below;
only a historical outline is offered here.
Augustine (section 2.2) considers that an act of self-recognition
emerges in self-reflective thinking in which the mind can view itself.
This act is similar to the act of remembering something on the basis
of a known pattern. Bernard of Clairvaux (section 2.3) emphasizes
that self-knowledge is the source of true humility. This tradition
is transformed into a new pattern of Platonic self-recognition in
Marsilio Ficino (section 2.5), who considers that lovers recognize
themselves in and through the beloved. Through the beloved, the
lover can connect himself with his own inner archetype so that a new
and deeper self-recognition emerges. Ontologically, this is enabled by
the likeness between lover and beloved, since through seeing the more
beautiful and more perfect beloved, the lover can recognize the
archetype that is common to them both.
Calvin (section 2.7) emphasizes the necessity of self-knowledge in
theology. Through renouncing self-possession and giving oneself
up to the Lord, the sinful human being starts to recognize himself
in a true light. The recognition of God is thus the precondition of
true self-recognition. As Calvin teaches that humans only recognize
themselvescoram Deo, he underlines heteronomy in a manner that
resembles Ficino. While Spalding (section 3.2) does not teach self-
recognition, his view of generic religious recognition as the condition
of possibility has analogical uses. Only through such existential
recognition can people see their own deeper being in a true light.
Hegel’s reiterated use of thefigure of self-recognition (section 3.3)
is both highly distinctive and original. At the same time, this use is
not without predecessors. Ficino’s dialectical elaboration of heteron-
omous lover is concerned with similar terminology of self-recognition.
While Zinzendorf (section 3.1) does not develop a consistent termin-
ology, his manifold elaboration of the relationship between God and
humans through struggle and heteronomous attachment contains
similar elements. Bernard, Ficino, and Zinzendorf are loosely associ-
ated through the language of bridal mysticism that underlines
heteronomy and self-recognition through love.
4.1.7. Mutuality and Gift ExchangeThe intellectual history of religious recognition shows a complex
dynamics regarding the issue of mutuality. At the linguistic level,
Recognition in Religion 193