Radix - Volume 51, Issue 2, 2025

In art in general, the ‘objective’ concerns the aesthetic realists’ view of the status of aesthetic properties. In Christian art, the ‘objective’ concerns the question of whether the work is open to the religious transcendent. The observers involved can thus attune their religious practice to the religious work in question and be open to the religious transcendent. With regard to art in general, the aesthetic judgment about beauty is not about subjective or objective but about a reciprocal relationship between the viewer and the art object. Aesthetic judgments are normative in the sense that they can be argued. This also applies to the aesthetic judgment of the beautiful within the context of Christian art. The difference lies in the moment of interpretation, which differs between the secular and Christian context.

In this essay, I examine the relationship between fiction and truth using two essays by C.S. Lewis. Human thinking and experiencing are mutually exclusive: thinking is abstract, experiencing is concrete. According to Lewis, it is possible to (almost) eliminate this split by enjoying a myth. My suggestion is that this applies not only to myth but also to other kinds of stories. Once we begin to detach the truth we see in a story from the story itself, an impoverishment occurs, in that we then necessarily lose the concreteness of experience. In addition, I wonder what touches us when we are impressed by a story. I suggest that it is not, or not only, its truth, but chiefly its meaning. To experience meaning we use our imagination; to know truth our reason. Thus we might explain why we can be touched by stories we do not recognize as ‘true’.

The debate about room for religion in public space is often framed in terms of a contrast between the subjective and the objective. In this context, religion is seen as subjective; after all, beliefs are considered to be merely personal opinions. In contrast, the government is viewed as objective; it is expected to rely on facts rather than prejudices, as Van Dale defines the term ‘objective’. The belief that the government can create a neutral public space from an objective starting point carries significant risks. Such a government assumes it knows what is best for its citizens and enforces that view. This reduces the space available for minorities to hold differing views. It puts pressure on tolerance for divergent opinions and practices, and thus threatens a pluralistic society. A government that acknowledges its own subjective position creates space for a diversity of views to exist side by side. This fosters tolerance.

Recent controversies surrounding the burning of religious scriptures in the Netherlands and other European countries have reignited debates on the limits of free speech. However, Dutch law does not prohibit such acts. This article analyses whether the Netherlands should criminalise these acts. It does so by outlining the legal and philosophical framework for the right to freedom of speech in relation to blasphemy and group defamation laws. In this analysis, two competing perspectives emerge: a Voltairean perspective that stands for a wide range of expressions to be protected under the freedom of expression, and a multiculturalist perspective, that narrows the range of free speech to protect religious communities from offense and social unrest. After these perspectives are elaborated on, this article outlines the tension between viewing the desecration of religious scriptures as a form of symbolic speech versus a form of symbolic silencing. By analysing this tension and assessing its implications, this study seeks to formulate a normative perspective on the criminalisation of the desecration of religious scriptures, and thereby contributes to the ongoing discussion on balancing free speech and religious tolerance in pluralistic societies.

Inner healing occurs when a human heart is touched by an appropriate interpretation of (God’s) reality. Theologically, a correct perspective on the person of Jesus and the specific nature of the Spirit’s activity is important. The salutary effect of God’s healing Presence is inclusion in community; it establishes relationships that are particularly communicative in nature. God acts primarily in a sacramental way, in and through the church. Inner healing is for everyone.

This essay explores the implications of (generative) artificial intelligence (AI) for education, particularly in primary education. While AI can improve efficiency and support various educational processes, the rapid integration of technology in classrooms calls for a deeper consideration of which aspects of education should and should not be assigned to AI. Drawing on thinkers such as E.D. Hirsch, Thomas Pfau, and Simone Weil, I argue that the acquisition of knowledge is not merely instrumental but foundational to critical thinking, moral development, and human flourishing. Increasing reliance on AI may undermine human capacities such as memory, attention, and moral judgment, which are essential to the good life. The essay questions whether the promise of personalized learning via AI might actually contribute to cultural fragmentation, inequality, and a diminished capacity for attention. Rather than rejecting technology outright, I advocate for a more deliberate approach that prioritizes human formation and flourishing. Ultimately, the essay calls for educators and policymakers to rethink the role of AI in education, not only in terms of how we use it but also in terms of whether its integration aligns with the deeper purposes of education in a democratic and humane society.