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

Ronald Kershaw here.

Expand Messages
  • Ronald Kershaw
    Gentlemen, Apologies for my last note. On re-reading it I wondered who wrote it, then I realised I must have been drinking when I wrote it ( tis the season ).
    Message 1 of 4 , Dec 31, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Apologies for my last note. On re-reading it I wondered who wrote it, then I realised I must have been drinking when I wrote it ("tis the season"). Happy New year fellas! Ronald Kershaw.

      roncriss <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
      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 <jhgmail@y...>
      > 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~

      Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

      Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals

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