Kenneth, excellent quote. Would you say the quaitative dialectic is objective knowledge/personal understanding or something else? Don ... reading ... which,Message 1 of 85 , Dec 4 1:43 AMView Source
Kenneth, excellent quote. Would you say the quaitative dialectic is objective knowledge/personal understanding or something else?
--- In email@example.com, "Kenneth" <karmstrong@...> wrote:
> >>> did you mean by your analogyâ¦
> Hmmmâ¦ Yes, my âanalogyâ did fall totally flat. I
> was trying to distinguish between what I âknowâ by reading
> K unaided and what K might wish me to understand eventually, to become
> fully conscious of dialectic as he would mean it to be understood. Let
> me try another and totally different illustration that conjures no
> chubby aunts in pillbox hats.
> ââ¦ true consciousness of â¦ good fortune (without which,
> as has been said, the good fortune is not good fortune) is contained in,
> framed in, the consciousness that God is love. Knowledge about God being
> love is not yet the consciousness of it. For to have consciousness, a
> personal consciousness, it is requisite that in my knowing I have at the
> same time knowledge of myself and of my relationship to my knowing. This
> is to believe that God is love, it is to love Him.â
> CHRISTIAN DISCOURSES AND THE LILIES OF THE FIELD AND THE BIRDS OF THE
> AIR AND THREE DISCOURSES AT THE COMMUNION ON FRIDAYS; 1940 Oxford
> University Press, CHRISTIAN DISCOURSES: Part III â" Thoughts Which
> Wound From Behind; Discourse III â" All Things Must Work Together
> For Our Goodâ"If We Love God, p. 203
> >>>distrust of reflective thoughtâ¦
> Itâs your turn to provide the quote.
> This âconversationâ gets turned in so many different ways,
> generates so many new questionsâ¦
> For every line I send I have deleted 10â¦ I enjoy it and yet I
> leave my duties unfinished. And Iâm pooped.
> >>> reading the quotations you provided from CUP and will respond
> I didnât request a line-item explanation. But may I request you
> find dialectic to have something to do with simplifying, clarifying?
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, James Rovira jamesrovira@
> > 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
> > 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 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
> > 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
> > works -- those contained in the Hongs' edition of Point of View -- as
> > as Climacus's argument in CUP and K's appendix to it -- indicate a
> > of reflective thought, viewing it as a means by which the single
> > is brought to birth, but not capable of directly presenting the truth
> > us. Remember that Climacus said that his book came with a revocation,
> > that anyone who cites him as an authority misunderstands him.
> > That being said, K doesn't consistently maintain distance between
> > 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
> > 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 R
> > On 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
> > >
> > > Among works of man, I judge K's writings' value as second only to
> > > 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
> > > Position as a Christian Author in Christendom*? An "Aunt Minnie" is
> > > physical presence? I'd expect to find her in the same museum with
> > > Samaritan's jug of anointing oil. I'm in search of what K meant when
> > > wrote `dialectic'. I can partially blame my being educated in a
> > > centuryï¿½ and the dog ate my homework.
> > >
> > > Kenneth
> > >
> > >
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.