本文將亞大納削《論道成肉身》與若望 • 貝爾的教父基督論,同 貝爾納 • 斯蒂格勒的技術藥毒論觀點相互參照,藉此重新審視「神化」（theosis）這一概念。在亞大納削看來,神化首先指向聖言的道成肉 身 — 天主降生成人,這是天主為使我們得以神化而主動採取的行 動。貝爾則將道成肉身與基督的犧牲相聯繫,主張人唯有以「我願」（fiat）回應道成肉身及基督在十字架上的犧牲,在基督內經歷死亡並 重生,方能成為「完全的人」。
本研究將上述教父學觀點,與當代受跨人類主義影響的技術觀 進行對照,後者往往將有限性視為有待根除的缺陷。跨人類主義追 求人為的超越,然而希臘神話中對技術的記述,卻出乎意料地要求人在運用技術時懷有一種羞恥感（aidos）; 對斯蒂格勒而言,這種羞 恥感即是一種對有限性的感知。本文主張,無論從教父學的觀點來 看,抑或從現代技術哲學框架中作為人之為人的構成性要素而言, 對人類有限性的覺悟,皆是實現真正神化的根本前提。

This paper reexamines the concept of theosis, deification, by placing Athanasius’s On the Incarnation and John Behr’s patristic Christology in dia-logue with Bernard Stiegler’s pharmacological view of technics. For Athana-sius, theosis primarily refers to the Incarnation of the Word of God, in which God became man, an initiative of God’s that enables us to be deified. Ex-panding on this, Behr connects the Incarnation with Christ’s sacrifice, argu-ing that human beings become “fully human” only by uttering our fiat to die and live in Christ in response to the Incarnation and the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.
The study contrasts this patristic vision with contemporary technologi-cal attitudes, influenced by transhumanism, that often treat finitude as a de-fect to be eradicated. While transhumanism seeks artificial transcendence, this paper finds that the account of technics in the Greek myth counterintui-tively requires a sense of shame (aidos) and, according to Stiegler, a sense of finitude. This paper argues that the awareness of human finitude is the es-sential threshold for genuine deification, both from a patristic view and as a constitutive element of being human within modern philosophical frame-works of technics.