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

RE: [Kierkegaardian] Ends...

Expand Messages
  • Don Anderson
    Jeff, Thanks for your response. Sorry I am a bit late getting back to you. I have noticed the conversations you have been having with others. Clearly Mr.
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 30, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Jeff,
      Thanks for your response. Sorry I am a bit late getting back to you. I have
      noticed the conversations you have been having with others. Clearly Mr.
      Brown thinks you are a wringer and you know more about this than you are
      professing. Perhaps he is right. Clearly you are a bright and thoughtful
      person but I will take you at your word that you have very little
      acquaintance with Kierkegaard (SK).

      you said:
      I think I need to think over your comments, especially that about the matter
      of -ends- being more what's at stake rather than principles in Either/Or.
      This is an interesting proposition.

      Still, I am left with my beautiful portrait of a child and no absolute
      answer to my question: is this painting unethical.

      Perhaps it is Jim who is right in saying that for K the painting is neutral
      as to being ethical or aesthetical. Only human beings could possibly be
      assessed as either one or the other in their activities...

      me: I didn't address your portrait statement previously. Several others
      have. I agree with those who say that SK would likely say that your portrait
      is simply an object. It is neither aesthetic or ethical - neither, in and of
      itself, "beautiful" or "moral." You have asked, "Is this painting
      unethical?" SK's answer, in my opinion, would be that that is a nonsensical
      question. An object is not ethical. People, not things, are aesthetic,
      moral, and religious as the case may be. So how a self relates to the
      painting brings it to the relm of aesthetics, ethics, or the religious. More
      specificly, the choices the self makes in its relationship to the painting
      would be aesthetc, ethical, or religious or some combination of all three.
      So your interpretation of what Jim said is essentially correct.

      You said:
      Still the painting is the result of the activity of the painter & of the
      observer. Are their respective activities unethical ? I can't see how Jim's
      latest precisions answer these questions. Your suggestion, on the contrary,
      resets somehow the question.

      me: But you are not satisfied so you ask about the painter and an observer.
      Now it is a question SK can more likely deal with. But the answer is that
      their respective activities may or may not be unethical. It depends on haw
      the person who paints does it and how the person who views it responds. SK
      would not be happy with the person who simply viewed it as an intellectul
      exercise of seeing and registering in ones mind something that is beautiful.
      It becomes ethical (or unethical) when I reflect upon it and more
      specifically when it effects my life choices in some way. Whether it is
      ethical or unethical depends on _how_ I choose.

      You said:
      As stated in the introduction, Either/or can be conceived as the exposition
      of two different life-conceptions, which essential difference resides, as
      you are suggesting, in the stress of either the aesthetic or the ethical as
      the absolute end

      me: yes this is essentially it but there is a third, and it is crucial to
      SK, life-conception, the religious (Christianity). You don't as I recall get
      much of the latter in Either/Or except a hint in the edifying last word (a
      sermon by the Jutland priest.

      you said:
      - I take it you mean aim, purpose or principle by this word, don't you ?

      me: Yes I suppose so. It is that to which you commit your life, that which
      you most live for.


      You:
      Still, for these conceptions to stand in a proper either/or, a real choice,
      there need be a contradiction between the terms. You seem to be saying that
      for K. the contradiction lies in the setting one or the other as the absolue
      end. So a priori there is no contradiction between the beautiful and the
      good, or is there ?

      me: I don't believe SK would necessarily agree that there need be a
      contradiction between the terms. Actually that isn't the point. The issue is
      not what one thinks or how one defines terms its how one acts or doesn't
      act. SK is all about making choices and acting. He is very critical of those
      who go along with the croud, who just do what others do, never reflecting on
      whether it is beautiful or good or whatever. They are just part of he crowd,
      the herd. He wants to see people be an existing individual who chooses a
      self and a life in a very deliberate and courageous manner. Of course he is
      very aware that not choosing is itself a choice but it is a blind choice.

      you:The following question is then : why is setting the aesthetic as the
      absolute necessarily unethical ? Why, this one is simple: because now the
      beautiful is thus ultimately prefered to the good if they ever collide.

      me: This is getting you closer to to the truth as SK sees it.

      you: Now why should necessarily the good collide with the beautiful at some
      point ? Is this in their nature to collide ? No, for we have just said the
      contradiction is not necessary. Is it accidental ? What have them colliding
      ?
      Is it us or is it fate ? Or is it something else ? Are we free to see the
      beautiful and the good as contradictionless ?

      me: The contradiction comes in not in that there is a contradiction between
      the logical concepts "good" and "beautiful." It is in how I respond to it.
      Perhaps a quick example would illustrate: If I see a very beautiful woman
      and my response is to rape her and kill her how do my actions come out in
      terms of the ethical? On the other hand if I bet to know her and devote
      myself to loving her and careing for and about her life how is that
      different?

      Just one more word about absolute and relative commitments or aims. Sk, I
      believe, would say that both "the beautiful" and "the good" as we finite
      human beings know it are finite. They can point us in the direction of the
      absolute (God) but they are not the absolute.

      Thanks for the very stimulating conversations!!
      Don
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.