Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

My Own Introduction

Expand Messages
  • <none>
    Hello -- I think I subscribed about the same time Greg did, so I thought I d introduce myself. I m Jim Rovira. I ve been reading existentialist lit off and
    Message 1 of 4 , Jul 12, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello -- I think I subscribed about the same time Greg did, so I
      thought I'd introduce myself. I'm Jim Rovira. I've been reading
      existentialist lit off and on since High School, first drawn in by
      Walter Kaufmann's _Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre_. I think
      the attraction at the time was similar to Greg's -- I was looking for
      meaning in life, maybe even looking for a reason not to slit my wrists.
      Anyway, Kaufmann's book seems flawed in retrospect but certainly
      served its purposes at the time.

      I'm currently working on my dissertation in the field of English
      Romanticism and Kierkegaard, focusing on Kierkegaard's _Concept of
      Anxiety_. It's interesting reading this against Greg's short
      description of Frankl's main point: that there's no universal meaning
      to life, we have to find it for ourselves. I think Kierkegaard would
      say this is a half truth. In CoA he makes clear delineations between
      the logical (esp. in terms of Hegel's _Logic_), the psychological, the
      ethical, and the dogmatic, and tries throughout to demonstrate the
      problems inherent in confusing one category with another.

      In responding to Frankl (or at least Greg's presentation of him) K.
      might say Frankl is confusing the psychological with the dogmatic. I
      think the main idea here is that there is a universal meaning to life
      that must be individually appropriated. So univeral meaning is located
      in dogma, but merely being able to mouth the dogma doesn't mean you've
      individually appropriated the meaning. In his discussion of
      spiritlessness K. makes it pretty clear that the spiritless can say all
      the right words and look and act like those with spirit, but it is just
      babbling, like the murmuring of a brook, somewhat comic and horrible
      all at the same time.

      This universal meaning is ultimately defined in relationship to God as
      far as K. is concerned. It's really very hard to talk about
      Kierkegaard honestly and ignore this element. Dogma gives us the
      content, but it doesn't really mean much until we've recovered a self
      and stood it before God and seen the truth of the dogma for ourselves.


      Thanks for listening,

      Jim
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.