Kenneth, Presumably dialectic will never look like Aunt Minnie! Dialectic is an abstract concept and Aunt Minnie has a physical presence somewhere.Dec 2 5:33 PM 1 of 85View Source
Kenneth, Presumably "dialectic" will never look like "Aunt Minnie!" "Dialectic" is an abstract concept and "Aunt Minnie" has a physical presence somewhere. We all have a guess about the question you ask so what is yours. I gave you mine. I expect to learn from you.Don
> Will dialectic ever look like an Aunt Minnie?
> An experienced gentleman once told me this story: Suppose he were to
> write a whole book describing his Aunt Minnie's face, her body
> shape, and her gait. If he then tested of my knowledge by sending me
> to the airport to pick her up based on the exhaustive descriptions, he
> knew I would struggle and fearfully wait for external confirmation of my
> guess. But if he went to the airport his recognition would be
> instantaneous and certain. That's her. That's Aunt Minnie. I
> find numerous references to dialectic by authors writing about K. But
> how do I know if they know Aunt Minnie or whether they just read the
> description like me? K writes as one who knows her. I read as one who
> waits to be introduced. Since K is not replying to my emails, I am
> searching for someone else to make the introduction or confirm my guess.
> I prefer that you each under-estimate my knowledge lest you discover I
> was only pretending to know Aunt Minnie. Aunt Minnie became our name
> for any item of knowledge of that sort.
> --- In email@example.com, James Rovira jamesrovira@
> > Ha...I'm sure you're right, Don. I do agree with you that Kenneth is
> > a great deal more knowledgeable than he first let on.
> > Jim R
> > On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:48 PM, nancyanddonray don@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > JimR, you said:
> > >
> > > > PS I'm wondering if Jim S's sockpuppetometer is going to go off
> > > > soon?
> > >
> > > No, there is no need for the sockpuppetometer!!
> > >
> > > Don
> > >
I agree, Don. What I would say now, to clarify my previous post, is that the author of E/O I is himself essentially a German Romantic but is employingDec 9 4:32 PM 85 of 85View SourceI agree, Don. What I would say now, to clarify my previous post, is that the author of E/O I is himself essentially a German Romantic but is employing Hegelian models of thought to explicate his views of an aesthetic personality.But once I've said it this way, the aesthete's reflective thought verges on self-reflective thought.I think that both the authors of E/O I and II follow Hegelian models to frame their thought, the good Judge arguing that the ethical is a synthesis proceeding from the contradictions inherent in the aesthetic -- so he argues for the aesthetic validity of marriage, something the aesthete hasn't considered and probably won't, regardless of what the Judge says.Jim ROn Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Don Anderson <don@...> wrote:
JimR, you said:
I'm not sure Don is wrong about seeing Hegel, but I do certainly agree with him that E/O II presents a limited outlook, one that K would not agree with himself. E/O I is strongly Hegelian. E/O II may be more Kantian. It is not yet Kierkegaardian, though, in my opinion.
Thank you for this. I would just comment that I think E/O I is not so much Hegelian (or German idealist) as it is the representation romanticism. As Lillian Swenson remarks in her “forward by the Reviser”, volume 1 is written by a “young romanticist” and volume 2 is written by a “mature ethical idealist.” Both have elements of Hegelianism as well as Kant, Fichte, The Greeks, and others. They rather stand alone as a representative of their position toward existence.