Jim S: I m sorry, but this is not a very responsible reply to what I ve written. The word complete is the focus of my disagreement with you, but you don tMessage 1 of 39 , Jan 4, 2007View SourceJim S:
I'm sorry, but this is not a very responsible reply to what I've written.
The word "complete" is the focus of my disagreement with you, but you don't
address that part of my post. You also don't address the significance of
the word "yourself" in the phrase, "Love your neighbor as you love
Let me break my original quotation down into steps, assumptions, as you
have. Here is the quotation:
<< Also, the ethical as complete self-denial isn't quite
Kierkegaardian either -- "love your neighbor as you love yourself."
>>Premise: The Kierkegaardian ethical is summed up by the phrase, "love your
neighbor as you love yourself."
1. -Complete- self denial means we make no reference to ourselves in our
2. "Love your neighbor as you love yourself" makes reference to the self in
the form of the word "yourself."
3. Therefore, the Kierkegaardian ethical does not entail complete self
If you choose not to get how this very simple presentation could reflect my
intent for the quotation above, I'm very sorry -- but that is your choice.
I don't believe my original statement was nonsense. It simply did not go
into enough detail for you to understand it. Perhaps you would prefer to
say the statement was nonsense than to consider the possibility that you
Again, I am speaking of the ethical of the ethical sphere and not Christian
And here you seem to be completely ignoring my previous post:
<< But now we are back with heresy. Given what you write here, I
suggest, you are committed to saying that Jesus was talking nonsense
when he told his follower both (a) to deny himself and (b) to love
his neighbour as himself.>>
I said earlier that there is no contradiction because command (a) was given
to one group and (b) to another. Christ did not give these two commands to
the same groups.
"Deny yourself" was a command Christ issued to his followers, while "love
your neighbor as you love yourself" was one half of his summary of the
Jewish law: "The entire law is summed up in the command, 'love your
neighbor...'" Read these commands in the Biblical context. I provided
quotations, I think, in my previous post.
So again, Christ does not contradict himself because he is giving one
command (deny yourself) to one group (his followers) and another command
(love your neighbor) to another group (his fellow Jews).
"Love your neighbor...," of course, was not Christ's command, but his
quotation of Moses from Lev. 19. I provided the passage in my previous
If you still don't feel we can move forward from here, then I'll just wait
until you finish your rereading of CUP and see where we can go from there.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
If you want to know what I ve read from SK, Bill, I ve uploaded an unedited bibliography of my reading by and about Kierkegaard. It s in the Files sectionMessage 39 of 39 , Jan 6, 2007View SourceIf you want to know what I've read from SK, Bill, I've uploaded an unedited
bibliography of my reading by and about Kierkegaard. It's in the "Files"
section of this group's page at Yahoo. There may be a couple non-SK sources
mixed in and it's not completely alphabetized, and there may be some
duplication, but for the most part what I've read by and about K is on that
list. I may be missing some sources too.
But what you're essentially saying is that you trust what Hannay says
without having read much of Kierkegaard yourself, so feel you are competent
to judge what others say about Kierkegaard based upon your own lack of
You know, people who get published in peer review journals do disagree with
At any rate, as usual when you can't support what you're saying from your
own reading, you turn to attacking me. Now I'm willing to accept statements
like the following:
"As usual your own understanding of Religiousness B lacks any connection
to what Kierkegaard writes."
If you could support them from your own reading of, say, Concluding
Unscientific Postscript. Or, for that matter, if you were reading my own
posts or the posts of others very carefully at all.
Jim S did not say my posts were irresponsible. I said -one- of his replies
to me was irresponsible. You are misremembering something I said to Jim S,
and then getting it backwards, thinking it was something Jim S said to me.
He felt in the post complaining about me that I wasn't acknowledging what he
saw as an inherent contradiction in my words. So far as I can tell, though,
we've cleared that up.
I agree that Kierkegaard's emphasis is on the "how" is important, yes. As I
agree that "what is a self?" is probably the central issue in Kierkegaard.
It's way off to say I'm "ignoring" it -- as I've said repeatedly, I'm not
obligated to talk about any one subject in every discussion of every subject
on this forum.
I have never said anything about shame. Again, you're making that up and
attributing it to me. And, as usual, I asked you to support your claims
about my statements from quotations from my posts and, as usual, you ignore
the request -- because, of course, you can't meet it.
If you want to respond to me, again, why don't you quote Kierkegaard?
Better yet, perhaps you should quit writing about him so much and try
reading him more?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]