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

[Kierkegaardian] Re: Of Cabbages and Ontology

Expand Messages
  • Will Brown
    Well, Rick, if SK is to be believed, this solution to the problem I suggested that we need to solve on how guilt and sin mesh with each other is the perfect
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 26, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Well, Rick, if SK is to be believed, this solution to the problem I
      suggested that we need to solve on how guilt and sin mesh with each
      other is the perfect solution. This is SK having and eating his cake
      at the same time. He can introduce the first sin, and at the same time
      make it applicable not only to Adam, but to everyone else as the
      imitation of Adam; we each have our first sin, and that first sin is
      the loss of innocence to guilt. A capital notion, that. It applies to
      all, which means that SK can not only make it Christian specific down
      the line, but define it in such a way that it involves will; not me,
      but like in the second quote below, the one you laid on JimR.

      Neat, what? Guilt is the hereditary sin and the first sin and SK can
      build from that and create a second sin that involves offence against
      God. In this way, he has pegged the second sin as the Christian sin.
      I'll send you a bill. ----willy

      "That 'Hereditary Sin' is 'Guilt' is a real paradox. How paradoxical
      is best seen as follows. The paradox is formed by a composite of
      heterogeneous categories. 'Hereditary' is a category of nature.
      'Guilt' is an ethical category of spirit. How can it ever occur to
      aanyone to put these two together, the understanding says—to say
      that
      something is hereditary which by its very concept cannot be
      hereditary. It must be believed. The paradox of in Christian truth
      always involves the truth before God. CA, Thomte, Supplement, p. 230)
      (JP II 1530; Pap. X² A 481, n. d., 1850)

      "No, the older dogmatic was right in maintaining that because sin is
      against God it is infinitely magnified. The error consisted in
      considering God as some externality and in seeming to assume that only
      occasionally did one sin before God. But God is not some externality
      in the sense that a policeman is. The point must be observed is that
      the self has a conception of God and yet does not will as he wills,
      and thus is disobedient. Nor does one only occasionally sin before
      God, or, more correctly, what really makes human guilt into sin is
      that the guilty one has the consciousness of existing before God."
      (SUD, Hong, p. 80; Lowrie, p. 211)


      --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Will Brown" <wilbro99@y...>
      wrote:
      > Ricky, master, to hear is to obey. I'll begin work on a reply to
      Jim's
      > two posts 4thwith. The winter garden had been calling for attention,
      > but first thing first, right?
      >
      > Tell you what, since you are interested in Anxiety, let's you and I
      > struggle our way through it like we did with Purity of Heart. We
      even
      > have a resident scholar to keep us on the straight and narrow. Here
      is
      > where I would start:
      >
      > "Just as Adam lost innocence by guilt, so every man loses it." (CA,
      > Thomte, p. 35)
      >
      > There is something called innocence that is somehow lost through
      > something called guilt and Adam set the example for all of us. This
      > means that we all go through that same wringer, if wringer it is.
      This
      > 'all' doesn't mean just Christians, but all of us. This means that
      I,
      > as a non-Christian, as a purely secular creature, went through the
      > same wringer, if wringer it is. Because SK defines that wringer, if
      > wringer it is, in Christian terms does not mean that this wringer
      > cannot be defined in other terms.
      >
      > I have a candidate for the input/output of that wringer, if wringer
      it
      > is. The output is the sense of being who we are, what might be
      called
      > the sense of self. The input is the state of innocence in which
      there
      > is no self, that is, no self-ish reflection capable of allowing us
      to
      > say "me" and mean it. I have called it a wringer because wringer it
      > is; the output is a sense of self that depends upon a future and a
      > past to support its being, and that sense of self has lost its sense
      > of being to the thought of being. SK would call that a mis-relation.
      >
      > Now, how does SK work the difference between guilt and sin into his
      > scheme of things? I guess we'll just have to figure that one out.
      > ----willy
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.