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

Re: [Kierkegaardian] Digest Number 75

Expand Messages
  • Jonathan Glenn
    Thanks, Ron C- I am in the middle of a huge project, so I can t take the time to elaborate on my positions right now. I will as soon as I can! Meanwhile, let
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 16, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks, Ron C- I am in the middle of a huge project, so I can't take the time to elaborate on my positions right now. I will as soon as I can!
      Meanwhile, let me offer these thoughts on what you just wrote (which is very helpful in advancing the discussion):
      first, I agree that Ex-ism isn't reducible to a system based on commonly held tenets, but then I've already said that I don't believe it is a system at all. Rather it is an approach to thinking about systems (among other things). It is more than a catch-all code phrase for "I believe in myself".
      second, I think that K would have accepted the repudiation of any body of beliefs AS AN ADEQUATE BASIS FOR UNDERSTANDING GOD AND HIS RELATIONS WITH MANKIND. That's what I meant; I can see that I was not clear.
      I hope this is helpful-

      kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com wrote:

      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:


      There is 1 message in this issue.

      Topics in this digest:

      1. Re: EX-ism
      From: roncriss


      Message: 1
      Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 21:13:24 -0000
      From: roncriss
      Subject: Re: EX-ism

      First I would like to suggest that we make a distinction. We have
      two "Ron's" here, Ronald K. and Ron C. (the Moderator). For the sake
      of clarity I suggest we append the initial in future signatures.

      I suspect this message was aimed at Ronald K, but I'm going to jump
      in and reply to parts of it myself.

      --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Glenn
      > What I have been thinking a lot about, since 911 and its aftermath,
      is the nature of religious truth claims, particularly claims of
      authority, for which I have developed a thorough mistrust. And I have
      been examining the grounds of my own faith, and finding them to be
      chiefly existential in nature (as opp. to "rational", in the strict
      sense). Which, of course, will lead one 'round to our Danish friend!
      I have moved far from the apologetics-based "faith" (if indeed that's
      what it was) of my younger days.

      Existentialism is a very vague and hard to define term. Here is one

      "The term existentialism was first used after World War II by the
      French philosopher Gabriel Marcel, but it is generally agreed that
      the Danish theologian and philosopher Soren Kierkegaard is the first
      person for whose system of thought the word properly applies."

      "Existential philosophy is more a trend or attitude than it is
      coherent school or movement because it is intensely subjective. As a
      result, existentialist thinkers tend to vary greatly in their
      concerns and ultimate conclusions. In general, existentialism
      emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of individual experience in a
      hostile or indifferent universe while denying any special or unique
      essence that humans might have. Human existence is considered
      ultimately unexplainable, but existentialism also stresses freedom of
      choice and responsibility for the consequences of one's acts."

      "Jean-Paul Sartre's famous comment "existence precedes essence" helps
      explain this aspect of existentialism. What he meant by this phrase
      is that humans have no fixed, unchanging essence which makes them
      human. Instead, your essence - what makes you you - is created by
      your existence. Your existence, in turn, is determined by your
      choices. Thus, the responsibility for who you are lies with you."

      The word "existential" is defined as:

      1. Of, relating to, or dealing with existence.
      2. Based on experience; empirical.
      3. Of or as conceived by existentialism or existentialists: an
      existential moment of choice.

      Walter Kaufmann defines Existentialism as:

      "The refusal to belong to any school of thought, the repudiation of
      the adequacy of any body of beliefs whatever, and especially of
      systems, and a marked dissatisfaction with traditional philosophy as
      superficial, academic, and remote from life--that is the heart of

      Kaufmann also admits that, "Existentialism is not a school of thought
      nor reducible to any sort of tenets."

      I will admit that K (short for Kierkegaard) was dissatisfied with
      traditional philosophy and certain worldly and churchly (specifically
      Lutheren) systems. And is philosophy was based on dealing with
      existence. But he wuld not be opposed to the sytem of Christianity as
      a whole, would assent to Biblical principles. There is even some
      evidence, I believe, that, had he lived in a Catholic country he
      might have been a Catholic. Certainly his ideas on celibacy are
      closer to Catholic thought. So I don't think that K would have
      accepted the "repudiation of the adequacy of any body of beliefs

      So I don't see how K would assent to the loss of "the apologetics-
      based "faith"" or the acceptance of a non-rational faith. Perhaps you
      can explain yourself better?

      > Another thought, albeit off-topic (who cares?) I don't follow your
      application of a zen outlook to the works of the Desert Fathers (with
      which I am fairly familiar) or to the Kabbalah (with which I am
      unfamiliar and can only drop the name!). Care to elaborate?

      Ronald K, I'd like to hear about this "zen outlook to the works of
      the Desert Fathers" as well!

      ~Ron C~


      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

      Do you Yahoo!?
      New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.