self-discovery. The feudal bond and the relationship between
bride and bridegroom exemplify this constitutive transfer of benefits.
Zinzendorf elucidates this transfer when he considers that Christians
relate to Christ as‘his purchased goods, his labour-requiring bride,
his friends through struggle...his delightful plays’.^72
Philosophically, this model may have some connections with
Platonism. In Ficino’s case, this is obvious, but the very idea of a
‘true self’that needs to be discovered under the phenomena may be
called Platonic in a general sense.^73 The relational view that the self
needs an attachment to others to become what it is resembles the
Stoic idea ofoikeiosis.^74 We have also linked the concept of attach-
ment to Stoicism and Cicero in section 2.3. However, the background
in (i)–(iii) above need not represent any particular philosophical
current or school. The view of self-recognition as relational
self-discovery therefore employs a variety of background ideas that
are relevant in the period from Ficino to Hegel.
In sum, the present study has explicated a tradition of self-
recognition that can be distinguished from the Augustinian traditions
discussed by Ricoeur and the overall issue of self-knowledge. This
tradition of relational self-discovery characterizes the latter part of our
second paradigm of religious recognition, that is, from the Renaissance
to Hegel. Ficino and Calvin are among its most prominent represen-
tatives. In religious texts, love and faith are the relational attitudes
which produce such self-recognition. While this tradition employs
the medieval resources of the feudal bond and bridal mysticism, it
is essentially an early modern view that emphasizes gift transfer and
the relational constitution of personal identity. Hegel’sdialecticsof
mutual recognition can be illuminated by this view.
4.5. Conclusion: Ways and Aims of Recognition
While the German translation of Ricoeur’s seminal study speaks of
‘ways’of recognition in the plural, the English edition speaks of‘the
(^72) Zinzendorf,Reden, 111–12. Cf. section 3.1.
(^73) Cf. Sorabji 2006, 33–6. (^74) Sorabji 2006, 43–4.
Recognition in Religion 241