Ha...well, yes, Kenneth, Aunt Minnie is always a physical presence. Just to make sure I understood your analogy, did you mean by your analogy that you want toMessage 1 of 85 , Dec 3 7:19 AMView SourceHa...well, yes, Kenneth, Aunt Minnie is always a physical presence. Just to make sure I understood your analogy, did you mean by your analogy that you want to get to a real understanding of K's concept of the qualitative dialectic rather than just have a secondhand, abstract knowledge? You already know from your own reading of K that no one can give that to you. You can, however, perhaps discover it for yourself by discussing it with us, and you're bringing up a distinction within K's writings that I hadn't paid close attention to, so you're helping me understand K too.
My question was, does the concept of the qualitative dialectic refer to a real facet of human psychology or is it a thought experiment? The signed works -- those contained in the Hongs' edition of Point of View -- as well as Climacus's argument in CUP and K's appendix to it -- indicate a distrust of reflective thought, viewing it as a means by which the single individual is brought to birth, but not capable of directly presenting the truth to us. Remember that Climacus said that his book came with a revocation, and that anyone who cites him as an authority misunderstands him.
That being said, K doesn't consistently maintain distance between himself and his pseudonyms's concepts, as you point out below, so perhaps the difference here is between his ideal relationship to his ideas and his real relationship to them?
Do you think the single individual needs the concept of the single individual?
I've been reading the quotations you provided from CUP and will respond with my reading of them later today, maybe tonight, I hope.
Thanks for the conversation.
Jim ROn Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:21 AM, Kenneth <karmstrong@...> wrote:
Jim & Don: I physically need to and will aim to be succinct, shorting you both by a single response which is contrary to my general preference.
Among works of man, I judge K's writings' value as second only to the Scriptures. But regarding such an opinion no one should care. I am a beginner, an amateur. My Curriculum Vitae consists of a contract for dance lessons folded in the pages of Climacus' PF Preface.
I think K's qualitative dialectic is as likely a thought-experiment as his inwardness and existence of the single individual. Which of K's pseudonyms wrote the thought experiment named ARMED NEUTRALITY or My Position as a Christian Author in Christendom? An "Aunt Minnie" is a physical presence? I'd expect to find her in the same museum with the Samaritan's jug of anointing oil. I'm in search of what K meant when he wrote `dialectic'. I can partially blame my being educated in a different century… and the dog ate my homework.
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 employingMessage 85 of 85 , Dec 9 4:32 PMView 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.