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

Re: The Two Ethics; a chunky reply

Expand Messages
  • Jim Stuart
    Dear Willy, Your chunky reply crossed with my post, so here is my first, short, response to your chunky post. ... SK was going on about that must permeate any
    Message 1 of 30 , Feb 11, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Willy,

      Your chunky reply crossed with my post, so here is my first, short, response
      to your chunky post.

      At the start of your post, you write:

      >>"You and I begin from a position in respect to our interpretation of what
      SK was going on about that must permeate any and every attempt to discuss
      particular differences; that being our difference in interpreting the tranny
      from the esthetic to the ethical sphere."

      In this sentence you use the expression "the ethical sphere". With reference
      to what I write in my last post, is this the ethical_sphere_1 or the
      ethical_sphere_2?

      I'll have to take my time to think how to reply to the rest of your post, as
      my head is spinning at the moment.

      Yours,

      Jim Stuart
    • Will Brown
      ... are saying, but there are still some aspects of your view that leave me perplexed.
      Message 2 of 30 , Feb 11, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        > Dear Willy, I feel I am making progress in understanding what you
        are saying, but there are still some aspects of your view that leave
        me perplexed. <
        - - -- --- ----- --------
        Ok, let's see what's to see.

        = = == === =====

        JS: My greatest perplexity is over this sentence of yours:

        >>I agree that Socrates exists in the ethical sphere of existence, but
        not SK's ethical, and that the difference between the two is at the
        base of what /Fragments and CUP are all about, what I call his
        Socrates problem.<<

        You seem to be distinguishing between two spheres of existence, which
        you call "the ethical sphere of existence" and "SK's ethical".

        But didn't Kierkegaard introduce the category "the ethical sphere of
        existence", so isn't it more correct to talk of "SK's ethical sphere
        of existence" and "SK's ethical".

        But isn't "SK's ethical" also a sphere of existence, so we have two
        different "ethical spheres of existence" both talked about in PF and CUP.

        Let me call them "ethical_sphere_of_existence_1" and
        "ethical_sphere_of_existence_2". Ethical_sphere_of_existence_1 is the
        sphere of existence where Socrates existed, and where the first ethics
        is applicable. Ethical_sphere_of_existence_2 is the sphere of
        existence which an individual must enter if he is to progress to the
        religious A sphere of existence, then to the religious B sphere of
        existence. The second ethics is applicable here, according to you.
        - - -- --- ----- --------
        Ok, we have E1 and E2. There are three spheres of existence, the
        esthetic, E2, and the religious. This is what SK sets up in /Stages/.

        = = == === =====

        > To help me understand PF and CUP in the way you understand them,
        can you indicate examples where Climacus uses the phrase "the ethical
        sphere of existence" to refer to ethical_sphere_of_existence_1 and
        where he uses "the ethical sphere of existence" to refer to
        ethical_sphere_of_existence_2? <
        - - -- --- ----- --------
        I cannot. I do not know what you are asking for here. The discussion
        between Don and I arose because I saw him saying that what I saw as E2
        was really E1.

        = = == === =====

        >In the following quote, which ethical sphere of existence is Climacus
        referring to?

        >"There are ... three spheres of existence: the aesthetic, the
        ethical, the religious. Two boundary zones correspond to these three:
        irony, constituting the boundary between the aesthetic and the
        ethical; humor, as the boundary that separates the ethical from the
        religious. .. [The ethicist] is what he is solely and exclusively
        through maintaining an inner relationship to the absolute requirement.
        Such an ethicist uses irony as his incognito. Socrates was in this
        sense an ethicist, but it is well to note that he was an ethicist who
        tended well up toward the limit of the religious ..." (CUP, Lowrie,
        pp. 448-9) <
        - - -- --- ----- --------
        He is referring to E2. And yes, in the sense of his use of irony,
        Socrates was an ethicist; but what does that have to do with the
        ethical sphere he sets up in CUP to allow the 'issue' to be manifest,
        other than being the ethic whose direction must be changed from
        recollection to repetition? It is here that I see you missing that
        absolute disjunction Socrates has already crossed, which necessitates
        SK's need to go beyond.

        = = == === =====

        > Further does Climacus just talk about two ethical spheres of
        existence, or are there also two aesthetic spheres, two spheres of
        religiousness A and two spheres of religiousness B? <
        - - -- --- ----- --------
        He speaks about only one ethical sphere of existence. That sphere of
        existence is oriented towards repetition. He began with the ethical
        because that is where he finds Socrates. It is there that he changes
        the first ethics into the new ethics. Again, you seem to be missing
        the category of the absolute disjunction that finds Socrates already
        in the position SK wants to move from. If Socrates were not already in
        the position SK finds him, he, SK, would not be giving him the time of
        day. There has to be something special about Socrates.

        = = == === =====

        > Further again, given that Climacus tells us we must first get as far
        as Socrates before going beyond him, is it correct, on your account,
        that we must pass through both of the ethical spheres of existence
        before progressing to the religious spheres? <
        - - -- --- ----- --------
        Here, definitely, our basic difference shows up. I would say that SK
        /explicitly/ said that we must begin with Socrates if we are to go
        further. The notion of passing through brings the esthetic sphere back
        into play.

        "The great merit of the Socratic was precisely to emphasize that the
        knower is an existing person and that to exist is the essential. To go
        beyond Socrates by failing to understand this is nothing but a
        mediocre merit. This we must keep /in mente/ [in mind] and then see
        whether the formula cannot be changed in such a way that one actually
        does go beyond the Socratic." (CUP, Hong, p. 207; Lowrie, p. 185)

        = = == === =====

        JS: There is one other section of your post I wish to question you about:

        >>He begins the chapter we have been discussing, Chapter II, with this
        heading:

        *The Subjective Issue, or how subjectivity must be constituted in
        order that the issue may be manifest to it*

        That last heading says to me that he is going to change the Socratic
        ethic to an ethic that allows for the progression to A and B.
        Subjectivity is going to be changes from the inwardness of Socrates to
        another inwardness, one that allows a movement, not back into the
        eternal, but upward and forward to the God-relation, and Religiousness
        B. <<

        I'm not sure why the Socratic ethics wasn't adequate for allowing the
        progression to A and B. Perhaps you can say why you think the Socratic
        ethics is a dead end, and we need to progress to another ethics in
        order to progress to the religious spheres.
        - - -- --- ----- --------
        I do not think the Socratic ethic is a dead end. Where did you get
        such an thought? What are you thinking here? It's SK's choice to make
        that decision isn't it? We are talking about what SK is saying. What
        does what I think about Socrates' ethics have to do with what SK thinks?

        = = == === =====

        > My own understanding is that Socrates really got as far as
        religiousness A, as he did believe in God, and had "Socratic faith".
        His only "problem" is that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time
        - he had not heard about the "special" historical fact of God coming
        in human form. Without knowledge of this fact he could not have
        consciousness of sin. Socrates "passion for the infinite" took him as
        far as he was able to travel in the direction of maximum subjectivity,
        given he had not receive the revelation of the absolute paradox.
        Without this revelation, an individual cannot progress to the sphere
        of religiousness B. <

        I will not quibble with that other than to say that a close reading of
        the section titled /The intermediate Clause between A and B/ might
        clarify that quibble.

        = = == === =====

        > According to Johannes Climacus, on my view, we (i.e. you and me and
        others on this forum) have the opportunity of first getting as far as
        Socrates, and then going beyond Socrates because we have heard about
        God having come in human form. Yours, Jim Stuart <

        Yes, I would say that JC/SK says that. ----willy
      • Will Brown
        ... what SK was going on about that must permeate any and every attempt to discuss particular differences; that being our difference in interpreting the tranny
        Message 3 of 30 , Feb 11, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          >>"You and I begin from a position in respect to our interpretation of
          what SK was going on about that must permeate any and every attempt to
          discuss particular differences; that being our difference in
          interpreting the tranny from the esthetic to the ethical sphere."

          > In this sentence you use the expression "the ethical sphere". With
          reference to what I write in my last post, is this the
          ethical_sphere_1 or the ethical_sphere_2? <

          Since you already know the answer to that question, the only sense I
          can make of it is that you are trying to make a point by asking it. If
          not, let that statement answer it. ----willy
        • Jim Stuart
          Dear Willy, Thank you for your detailed reply to my points here. One puzzle strikes me on my first reading of your post. Consider this section from your post:
          Message 4 of 30 , Feb 12, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Willy,

            Thank you for your detailed reply to my points here.

            One puzzle strikes me on my first reading of your post.

            Consider this section from your post:

            [JS:] Ethical_sphere_of_existence_1 is the sphere of existence where
            Socrates existed, and where the first ethics is applicable.
            Ethical_sphere_of_existence_2 is the sphere of existence which an individual
            must enter if he is to progress to the religious A sphere of existence, then
            to the religious B sphere of existence. The second ethics is applicable
            here, according to you.
            - - -- --- ----- --------
            [WB:]Ok, we have E1 and E2. There are three spheres of existence, the
            esthetic, E2, and the religious. This is what SK sets up in /Stages/.

            Here is my puzzle: Are you saying that Socrates doesn't fit in to any of the
            three spheres of existence set up by SK in /Stages/? My understanding was
            that everybody fitted in somewhere, but you seem to be saying that Socrates
            (and all the other Greeks?) didn't fit in at all.

            Also, if SK is saying we have to first get as far as Socrates, before going
            beyond him, then there seems no clear way of getting as far as Socrates, as
            he isn't on the map. It's no use saying "If you want to get to Harrogate,
            first get to Leeds", if Leeds isn't on the map.

            Your "three stage" interpretation of SK seems to imply we just leap straight
            from the aesthetic sphere to E2 (the ethical sphere interpreted as the mode
            of existence where the new ethics applies). But isn't this leap missing out
            the Socratic completely? How is it that SK is telling us, on the one hand,
            that we must first get as far as Socrates, but, on the other hand, that we
            must miss out Socrates completely? (We have to miss him out if he isn't on
            the map.)

            Finally, your interpretation (in PF) of the transition from error to truth,
            the "re-birth", as being the transition from the aesthetic sphere to the
            ethical sphere also now puzzles me. Doesn't that mean Socrates did exist as
            an aesthetic individual on your interpretation? (Remember he was in error.)
            However you have denied that Socrates existed as an aesthetic individual.

            Yours,

            Jim







            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Will Brown" <wilbro99@...>
            To: <kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 6:13 AM
            Subject: [Kierkegaardian] Re: The Two Ethics


            > > Dear Willy, I feel I am making progress in understanding what you
            > are saying, but there are still some aspects of your view that leave
            > me perplexed. <
            > - - -- --- ----- --------
            > Ok, let's see what's to see.
            >
            > = = == === =====
            >
            > JS: My greatest perplexity is over this sentence of yours:
            >
            > >>I agree that Socrates exists in the ethical sphere of existence, but
            > not SK's ethical, and that the difference between the two is at the
            > base of what /Fragments and CUP are all about, what I call his
            > Socrates problem.<<
            >
            > You seem to be distinguishing between two spheres of existence, which
            > you call "the ethical sphere of existence" and "SK's ethical".
            >
            > But didn't Kierkegaard introduce the category "the ethical sphere of
            > existence", so isn't it more correct to talk of "SK's ethical sphere
            > of existence" and "SK's ethical".
            >
            > But isn't "SK's ethical" also a sphere of existence, so we have two
            > different "ethical spheres of existence" both talked about in PF and CUP.
            >
            > Let me call them "ethical_sphere_of_existence_1" and
            > "ethical_sphere_of_existence_2". Ethical_sphere_of_existence_1 is the
            > sphere of existence where Socrates existed, and where the first ethics
            > is applicable. Ethical_sphere_of_existence_2 is the sphere of
            > existence which an individual must enter if he is to progress to the
            > religious A sphere of existence, then to the religious B sphere of
            > existence. The second ethics is applicable here, according to you.
            > - - -- --- ----- --------
            > Ok, we have E1 and E2. There are three spheres of existence, the
            > esthetic, E2, and the religious. This is what SK sets up in /Stages/.
            >
            > = = == === =====
            >
            > > To help me understand PF and CUP in the way you understand them,
            > can you indicate examples where Climacus uses the phrase "the ethical
            > sphere of existence" to refer to ethical_sphere_of_existence_1 and
            > where he uses "the ethical sphere of existence" to refer to
            > ethical_sphere_of_existence_2? <
            > - - -- --- ----- --------
            > I cannot. I do not know what you are asking for here. The discussion
            > between Don and I arose because I saw him saying that what I saw as E2
            > was really E1.
            >
            > = = == === =====
            >
            > >In the following quote, which ethical sphere of existence is Climacus
            > referring to?
            >
            > >"There are ... three spheres of existence: the aesthetic, the
            > ethical, the religious. Two boundary zones correspond to these three:
            > irony, constituting the boundary between the aesthetic and the
            > ethical; humor, as the boundary that separates the ethical from the
            > religious. .. [The ethicist] is what he is solely and exclusively
            > through maintaining an inner relationship to the absolute requirement.
            > Such an ethicist uses irony as his incognito. Socrates was in this
            > sense an ethicist, but it is well to note that he was an ethicist who
            > tended well up toward the limit of the religious ..." (CUP, Lowrie,
            > pp. 448-9) <
            > - - -- --- ----- --------
            > He is referring to E2. And yes, in the sense of his use of irony,
            > Socrates was an ethicist; but what does that have to do with the
            > ethical sphere he sets up in CUP to allow the 'issue' to be manifest,
            > other than being the ethic whose direction must be changed from
            > recollection to repetition? It is here that I see you missing that
            > absolute disjunction Socrates has already crossed, which necessitates
            > SK's need to go beyond.
            >
            > = = == === =====
            >
            > > Further does Climacus just talk about two ethical spheres of
            > existence, or are there also two aesthetic spheres, two spheres of
            > religiousness A and two spheres of religiousness B? <
            > - - -- --- ----- --------
            > He speaks about only one ethical sphere of existence. That sphere of
            > existence is oriented towards repetition. He began with the ethical
            > because that is where he finds Socrates. It is there that he changes
            > the first ethics into the new ethics. Again, you seem to be missing
            > the category of the absolute disjunction that finds Socrates already
            > in the position SK wants to move from. If Socrates were not already in
            > the position SK finds him, he, SK, would not be giving him the time of
            > day. There has to be something special about Socrates.
            >
            > = = == === =====
            >
            > > Further again, given that Climacus tells us we must first get as far
            > as Socrates before going beyond him, is it correct, on your account,
            > that we must pass through both of the ethical spheres of existence
            > before progressing to the religious spheres? <
            > - - -- --- ----- --------
            > Here, definitely, our basic difference shows up. I would say that SK
            > /explicitly/ said that we must begin with Socrates if we are to go
            > further. The notion of passing through brings the esthetic sphere back
            > into play.
            >
            > "The great merit of the Socratic was precisely to emphasize that the
            > knower is an existing person and that to exist is the essential. To go
            > beyond Socrates by failing to understand this is nothing but a
            > mediocre merit. This we must keep /in mente/ [in mind] and then see
            > whether the formula cannot be changed in such a way that one actually
            > does go beyond the Socratic." (CUP, Hong, p. 207; Lowrie, p. 185)
            >
            > = = == === =====
            >
            > JS: There is one other section of your post I wish to question you about:
            >
            > >>He begins the chapter we have been discussing, Chapter II, with this
            > heading:
            >
            > *The Subjective Issue, or how subjectivity must be constituted in
            > order that the issue may be manifest to it*
            >
            > That last heading says to me that he is going to change the Socratic
            > ethic to an ethic that allows for the progression to A and B.
            > Subjectivity is going to be changes from the inwardness of Socrates to
            > another inwardness, one that allows a movement, not back into the
            > eternal, but upward and forward to the God-relation, and Religiousness
            > B. <<
            >
            > I'm not sure why the Socratic ethics wasn't adequate for allowing the
            > progression to A and B. Perhaps you can say why you think the Socratic
            > ethics is a dead end, and we need to progress to another ethics in
            > order to progress to the religious spheres.
            > - - -- --- ----- --------
            > I do not think the Socratic ethic is a dead end. Where did you get
            > such an thought? What are you thinking here? It's SK's choice to make
            > that decision isn't it? We are talking about what SK is saying. What
            > does what I think about Socrates' ethics have to do with what SK thinks?
            >
            > = = == === =====
            >
            > > My own understanding is that Socrates really got as far as
            > religiousness A, as he did believe in God, and had "Socratic faith".
            > His only "problem" is that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time
            > - he had not heard about the "special" historical fact of God coming
            > in human form. Without knowledge of this fact he could not have
            > consciousness of sin. Socrates "passion for the infinite" took him as
            > far as he was able to travel in the direction of maximum subjectivity,
            > given he had not receive the revelation of the absolute paradox.
            > Without this revelation, an individual cannot progress to the sphere
            > of religiousness B. <
            >
            > I will not quibble with that other than to say that a close reading of
            > the section titled /The intermediate Clause between A and B/ might
            > clarify that quibble.
            >
            > = = == === =====
            >
            > > According to Johannes Climacus, on my view, we (i.e. you and me and
            > others on this forum) have the opportunity of first getting as far as
            > Socrates, and then going beyond Socrates because we have heard about
            > God having come in human form. Yours, Jim Stuart <
            >
            > Yes, I would say that JC/SK says that. ----willy
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • Jim Stuart
            Dear Jim R., What you write just confuses the on-going discussion between Don, Willy and myself. First, neither Willy, Don nor I think that the ethical 2 is
            Message 5 of 30 , Feb 12, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Jim R.,

              What you write just confuses the on-going discussion between Don, Willy and
              myself.

              First, neither Willy, Don nor I think that the "ethical 2" is equivalent to
              religiousness A.

              Don and I think that the ethical 2 (the second ethics, the new ethics) is
              the ethics of the religiousness B individual. It is the ethics that is
              appropriate after revelation of the absolute paradox, hence talk of the
              transcendent and consciousness of sin.

              Willy thinks that ethical 2 is the ethical sphere of existence between the
              aesthetic sphere and the sphere of religiousness A.

              Second, you claim that "predictably" Willy and I haven't mentioned God when
              discussing the ethical sphere of existence. I think we have both mentioned
              God - recall I talked about Socrates' "faith" in immortality and his believe
              that God is. However, the relation of God to the ethical sphere of existence
              is not central to my dispute with Willy.

              Third, you make some suggestions of the relationship of the ethical sphere
              of existence to that of religiousness A. Here is what you write:

              >>As I understand it, Religiousness A is characterized by the individual's
              sense of guilt before God. ... I would say that the difference between the
              ethical and religiousness A is the magnification of the ethical when
              understood in the light of awareness of the Divine. Without this constant
              awareness the ethical can find happiness -- with this awareness, lapses in
              the ethical are consciously understood as sin and become unbearable. ... So
              the difference between the ethical and religiousness A ... is a conscious
              orientation of the ethical toward the divine. The ethical of religiousness
              A is the same ethical in the Ethical stage, but is an ethical on steroids,
              so to speak. It is not just a benign ethical that allows you to accept your
              place in society and fulfil your duties. It is an ethical that makes you
              so miserable you will want to change your entire life. That change consists
              of the transition to the next stage of religiousness.<<

              I agree with some of this, but I would say that the main difference between
              the ethical individual and the religiousness A individual, is that the
              ethical individual attempts to fulfil the absolute ethical requirement in
              his own strength, while the religiousness A individual admits he cannot
              fulfil the absolute ethical requirement in his own strength and he develops
              a trusting relationship to God based on his consciousness of his own guilt,
              based on his own failure.

              I think consciousness of one's guilt develops during the ethical stage of
              existence, as one passionately attempts to live the perfect moral life, and
              then recognises one's own failure to achieve this aim. Consciousness of sin
              does not come in until the sphere of religiousness B.

              I think that the ethical sphere of existence merges into the sphere of
              religiousness A. There is no sharp discontinuity or leap between these
              spheres, as there is between the aesthetic sphere and the ethical sphere,
              and between the sphere of religiousness A and the sphere of religiousness B.

              The fact that Climacus sometimes uses just one word "the ethico-religious
              sphere" to cover both the ethical sphere and the sphere of religiousness A
              suggests that he sees no sharp discontinuity between these two spheres.

              Anyway, that is my view of the difference between the ethical sphere and the
              religiousness A sphere. It's similar to what you write in most respects.
              Willy might well characterise the difference between these two spheres
              differently, but, as I say, I don't think this is the area where Willy and I
              are most in disagreement.

              Fourthly, you write this at the end of your post:

              >>So you all can split hairs all day long over the difference between
              ethical 1 and ethical 2, but until you start calling ethical 2 "the
              religious," and start calling it that because God is involved in this stage
              somehow, you won't get anywhere.<<

              This comment shows you have not read the posts between Don, Willy and myself
              carefully enough. Don and I keep emphasizing that ethical 2 IS the ethics of
              religiousness B (the Christian). Ethical 1 is the pagan ethics of Socrates.

              Finally, let me comment on this sentence of yours:

              >>It is not just a benign ethical that allows you to accept your place in
              society and fulfil your duties.<<

              I've taken this sentence out of context, but your point is that the ethical
              1 just is "a benign ethical that allows you to accept your place in society
              and fulfil your duties". This may be Judge William's view of the matter, but
              it is not a description that would fit Socrates. Both Willy and myself agree
              that the ethical 1 is the ethics of Socrates, but Socrates was no meek
              conformist. If you remember he got put to death on charges of not respecting
              the gods and corrupting the young. This is not a case of "accepting your
              place in society."

              Yours,

              Jim Stuart
            • Will Brown
              Your post, which I shall leave as reference, seems to be one point made from different angles so I will respond to it, non-chunked, for two reasons: Firstly
              Message 6 of 30 , Feb 12, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Your post, which I shall leave as reference, seems to be one point
                made from different angles so I will respond to it, non-chunked, for
                two reasons:

                Firstly because it gives me the chance to say what I have been saying
                in a more compact way.

                Secondly because it gives me a chance to address the fact that you
                keep asking the same question to my same answer.

                Let me take the second reason first. The structure seems to be this:
                You say that I have left something out. I say that I have not and that
                I have placed it 'here.' You say that there is no 'here' here and that
                I have left it out. I try to show you where 'here' is and you say that
                there is no here, therefore I have left it out.

                The problem is 'here.' 'Here' /is/ the problem. You and I have a
                bright line difference such that when we end up in the position that
                we our only line of communication is across that barrier, our
                discussion falls apart. You may say that what I am saying here is
                nonsense and that I am not being coherent, as you are presently
                saying, rather nicely I must say, that my answers do not scan logically.

                I would say that from your vantage point it appears to you as if I am
                repeating the same error each time, which is why you keep asking
                questions that point to that error. From my vantage point, it appears
                to me that you have not understood my answer and are asking the same
                questions again and again, which was the second reason for my
                responding here.

                Ok, on to the first reason; one more time. Let me use your last
                comment as the leaping off place:

                > Your "three stage" interpretation of SK seems to imply we just leap
                straight from the aesthetic sphere to E2 (the ethical sphere
                interpreted as the mode of existence where the new ethics applies).
                But isn't this leap missing out the Socratic completely? How is it
                that SK is telling us, on the one hand, that we must first get as far
                as Socrates, but, on the other hand, that we must miss out Socrates
                completely? (We have to miss him out if he isn't on the map.) <

                Perhaps I can do this structurally only, in a way that casts our
                difference in the light of our difference, which might bring the cycle
                to an end, where we agree to disagree. Let's see. Not as much fun, I
                must admit.

                We begin with three positions, let's call them that; P, Q, & R. We
                could say that P stands for Pedestrian, Q stands for Quality, and R
                stands for Resurrection. What if my intent were not to discuss the
                process of moving from P to Q to R, which I must do in any case if
                those three were sequentially ordered, but to express Q as the quality
                that separates the Pedestrian from the Resurrection? Assume that there
                were a Pedestrian Resurrection and that I wanted to portray a
                Resurrection with Quality? I would need first to acquire the Quality,
                would I not?

                Now, assume that I had a particular Resurrection in mind and that the
                Quality applied to many differing Resurrections, cast in many
                different languages, even Greek. Would I not have to tailor the
                Quality I used to fit the Resurrection I wanted to portray? What if
                the Quality I chose to tailor to fit my needs had a Greek lilt to it?
                How could I leave it out if it were where I had to start? I ask you
                now, how? ----willy


                --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Stuart" <jimstuart@...>
                wrote:
                >
                > Dear Willy,
                >
                > Thank you for your detailed reply to my points here.
                >
                > One puzzle strikes me on my first reading of your post.
                >
                > Consider this section from your post:
                >
                > [JS:] Ethical_sphere_of_existence_1 is the sphere of existence where
                > Socrates existed, and where the first ethics is applicable.
                > Ethical_sphere_of_existence_2 is the sphere of existence which an
                individual
                > must enter if he is to progress to the religious A sphere of
                existence, then
                > to the religious B sphere of existence. The second ethics is applicable
                > here, according to you.
                > - - -- --- ----- --------
                > [WB:]Ok, we have E1 and E2. There are three spheres of existence, the
                > esthetic, E2, and the religious. This is what SK sets up in /Stages/.
                >
                > Here is my puzzle: Are you saying that Socrates doesn't fit in to
                any of the
                > three spheres of existence set up by SK in /Stages/? My
                understanding was
                > that everybody fitted in somewhere, but you seem to be saying that
                Socrates
                > (and all the other Greeks?) didn't fit in at all.
                >
                > Also, if SK is saying we have to first get as far as Socrates,
                before going
                > beyond him, then there seems no clear way of getting as far as
                Socrates, as
                > he isn't on the map. It's no use saying "If you want to get to
                Harrogate,
                > first get to Leeds", if Leeds isn't on the map.
                >
                > Your "three stage" interpretation of SK seems to imply we just leap
                straight
                > from the aesthetic sphere to E2 (the ethical sphere interpreted as
                the mode
                > of existence where the new ethics applies). But isn't this leap
                missing out
                > the Socratic completely? How is it that SK is telling us, on the one
                hand,
                > that we must first get as far as Socrates, but, on the other hand,
                that we
                > must miss out Socrates completely? (We have to miss him out if he
                isn't on
                > the map.)
                >
                > Finally, your interpretation (in PF) of the transition from error to
                truth,
                > the "re-birth", as being the transition from the aesthetic sphere to the
                > ethical sphere also now puzzles me. Doesn't that mean Socrates did
                exist as
                > an aesthetic individual on your interpretation? (Remember he was in
                error.)
                > However you have denied that Socrates existed as an aesthetic
                individual.
                >
                > Yours,
                >
                > Jim
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: "Will Brown" <wilbro99@...>
                > To: <kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com>
                > Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 6:13 AM
                > Subject: [Kierkegaardian] Re: The Two Ethics
                >
                >
                > > > Dear Willy, I feel I am making progress in understanding what you
                > > are saying, but there are still some aspects of your view that leave
                > > me perplexed. <
                > > - - -- --- ----- --------
                > > Ok, let's see what's to see.
                > >
                > > = = == === =====
                > >
                > > JS: My greatest perplexity is over this sentence of yours:
                > >
                > > >>I agree that Socrates exists in the ethical sphere of existence, but
                > > not SK's ethical, and that the difference between the two is at the
                > > base of what /Fragments and CUP are all about, what I call his
                > > Socrates problem.<<
                > >
                > > You seem to be distinguishing between two spheres of existence, which
                > > you call "the ethical sphere of existence" and "SK's ethical".
                > >
                > > But didn't Kierkegaard introduce the category "the ethical sphere of
                > > existence", so isn't it more correct to talk of "SK's ethical sphere
                > > of existence" and "SK's ethical".
                > >
                > > But isn't "SK's ethical" also a sphere of existence, so we have two
                > > different "ethical spheres of existence" both talked about in PF
                and CUP.
                > >
                > > Let me call them "ethical_sphere_of_existence_1" and
                > > "ethical_sphere_of_existence_2". Ethical_sphere_of_existence_1 is the
                > > sphere of existence where Socrates existed, and where the first ethics
                > > is applicable. Ethical_sphere_of_existence_2 is the sphere of
                > > existence which an individual must enter if he is to progress to the
                > > religious A sphere of existence, then to the religious B sphere of
                > > existence. The second ethics is applicable here, according to you.
                > > - - -- --- ----- --------
                > > Ok, we have E1 and E2. There are three spheres of existence, the
                > > esthetic, E2, and the religious. This is what SK sets up in /Stages/.
                > >
                > > = = == === =====
                > >
                > > > To help me understand PF and CUP in the way you understand them,
                > > can you indicate examples where Climacus uses the phrase "the ethical
                > > sphere of existence" to refer to ethical_sphere_of_existence_1 and
                > > where he uses "the ethical sphere of existence" to refer to
                > > ethical_sphere_of_existence_2? <
                > > - - -- --- ----- --------
                > > I cannot. I do not know what you are asking for here. The discussion
                > > between Don and I arose because I saw him saying that what I saw as E2
                > > was really E1.
                > >
                > > = = == === =====
                > >
                > > >In the following quote, which ethical sphere of existence is Climacus
                > > referring to?
                > >
                > > >"There are ... three spheres of existence: the aesthetic, the
                > > ethical, the religious. Two boundary zones correspond to these three:
                > > irony, constituting the boundary between the aesthetic and the
                > > ethical; humor, as the boundary that separates the ethical from the
                > > religious. .. [The ethicist] is what he is solely and exclusively
                > > through maintaining an inner relationship to the absolute requirement.
                > > Such an ethicist uses irony as his incognito. Socrates was in this
                > > sense an ethicist, but it is well to note that he was an ethicist who
                > > tended well up toward the limit of the religious ..." (CUP, Lowrie,
                > > pp. 448-9) <
                > > - - -- --- ----- --------
                > > He is referring to E2. And yes, in the sense of his use of irony,
                > > Socrates was an ethicist; but what does that have to do with the
                > > ethical sphere he sets up in CUP to allow the 'issue' to be manifest,
                > > other than being the ethic whose direction must be changed from
                > > recollection to repetition? It is here that I see you missing that
                > > absolute disjunction Socrates has already crossed, which necessitates
                > > SK's need to go beyond.
                > >
                > > = = == === =====
                > >
                > > > Further does Climacus just talk about two ethical spheres of
                > > existence, or are there also two aesthetic spheres, two spheres of
                > > religiousness A and two spheres of religiousness B? <
                > > - - -- --- ----- --------
                > > He speaks about only one ethical sphere of existence. That sphere of
                > > existence is oriented towards repetition. He began with the ethical
                > > because that is where he finds Socrates. It is there that he changes
                > > the first ethics into the new ethics. Again, you seem to be missing
                > > the category of the absolute disjunction that finds Socrates already
                > > in the position SK wants to move from. If Socrates were not already in
                > > the position SK finds him, he, SK, would not be giving him the time of
                > > day. There has to be something special about Socrates.
                > >
                > > = = == === =====
                > >
                > > > Further again, given that Climacus tells us we must first get as far
                > > as Socrates before going beyond him, is it correct, on your account,
                > > that we must pass through both of the ethical spheres of existence
                > > before progressing to the religious spheres? <
                > > - - -- --- ----- --------
                > > Here, definitely, our basic difference shows up. I would say that SK
                > > /explicitly/ said that we must begin with Socrates if we are to go
                > > further. The notion of passing through brings the esthetic sphere back
                > > into play.
                > >
                > > "The great merit of the Socratic was precisely to emphasize that the
                > > knower is an existing person and that to exist is the essential. To go
                > > beyond Socrates by failing to understand this is nothing but a
                > > mediocre merit. This we must keep /in mente/ [in mind] and then see
                > > whether the formula cannot be changed in such a way that one actually
                > > does go beyond the Socratic." (CUP, Hong, p. 207; Lowrie, p. 185)
                > >
                > > = = == === =====
                > >
                > > JS: There is one other section of your post I wish to question you
                about:
                > >
                > > >>He begins the chapter we have been discussing, Chapter II, with this
                > > heading:
                > >
                > > *The Subjective Issue, or how subjectivity must be constituted in
                > > order that the issue may be manifest to it*
                > >
                > > That last heading says to me that he is going to change the Socratic
                > > ethic to an ethic that allows for the progression to A and B.
                > > Subjectivity is going to be changes from the inwardness of Socrates to
                > > another inwardness, one that allows a movement, not back into the
                > > eternal, but upward and forward to the God-relation, and Religiousness
                > > B. <<
                > >
                > > I'm not sure why the Socratic ethics wasn't adequate for allowing the
                > > progression to A and B. Perhaps you can say why you think the Socratic
                > > ethics is a dead end, and we need to progress to another ethics in
                > > order to progress to the religious spheres.
                > > - - -- --- ----- --------
                > > I do not think the Socratic ethic is a dead end. Where did you get
                > > such an thought? What are you thinking here? It's SK's choice to make
                > > that decision isn't it? We are talking about what SK is saying. What
                > > does what I think about Socrates' ethics have to do with what SK
                thinks?
                > >
                > > = = == === =====
                > >
                > > > My own understanding is that Socrates really got as far as
                > > religiousness A, as he did believe in God, and had "Socratic faith".
                > > His only "problem" is that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time
                > > - he had not heard about the "special" historical fact of God coming
                > > in human form. Without knowledge of this fact he could not have
                > > consciousness of sin. Socrates "passion for the infinite" took him as
                > > far as he was able to travel in the direction of maximum subjectivity,
                > > given he had not receive the revelation of the absolute paradox.
                > > Without this revelation, an individual cannot progress to the sphere
                > > of religiousness B. <
                > >
                > > I will not quibble with that other than to say that a close reading of
                > > the section titled /The intermediate Clause between A and B/ might
                > > clarify that quibble.
                > >
                > > = = == === =====
                > >
                > > > According to Johannes Climacus, on my view, we (i.e. you and me and
                > > others on this forum) have the opportunity of first getting as far as
                > > Socrates, and then going beyond Socrates because we have heard about
                > > God having come in human form. Yours, Jim Stuart <
                > >
                > > Yes, I would say that JC/SK says that. ----willy
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
              • Jim Stuart
                Dear Willy, I find your last post difficult to understand, but it suggests to me one way of formulating the difference between us which we both might accept.
                Message 7 of 30 , Feb 12, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Willy,

                  I find your last post difficult to understand, but it suggests to me one way
                  of formulating the difference between us which we both might accept.

                  On your reading of both PF and CUP, the Socratic position, the first ethics,
                  is the starting point. It is the departure point for going beyond Socrates.
                  Going beyond Socrates means going, first of all, to the second ethics, and
                  then to the religious. This fits you own outlook, as you have also gone
                  beyond Socrates, and can look back at the Socratic first ethics from the
                  higher vantage point of second ethics.

                  On my reading of both PF and CUP, the Socratic position is the highest
                  position within immanence, the highest position before God's revelation of
                  the absolute paradox. Any "going beyond Socrates" involves divine
                  revelation. This fits my own outlook in the sense that I am a long way from
                  even reaching the level of Socrates. Socrates' "passion for the infinite" is
                  at a level of subjectivity that I can barely glimpse over the horizon. As
                  such I see Socrates' position as a position to aim for, and I seek to
                  identify it on the map Climacus sketches in CUP. I see Climacus as outlining
                  a route to deeper and deeper subjectivity. You are not interested in a
                  "process of moving from P to Q to R", hence you are not interested in
                  locating Socrates in relation to the three (or four) spheres of existence.

                  Do you agree with this way of characterising the differences between us?

                  At the risk of saying the same thing, or asking the same question, for the
                  fourth time, let me press you again on the position of Socrates in relation
                  to the second ethics.

                  Here are some of the things you wrote in your two chunky posts:

                  >>[Climacus] is referring to E2. And yes, in the sense of his use of irony,
                  Socrates was an ethicist; but what does that have to do with the ethical
                  sphere he sets up in CUP to allow the 'issue' to be manifest, other than
                  being the ethic whose direction must be changed from recollection to
                  repetition? It is here that I see you missing that absolute disjunction
                  Socrates has already crossed, which necessitates SK's need to go beyond.<<
                  (Quote One)

                  >>[Climacus] speaks about only one ethical sphere of existence. That sphere
                  of existence is oriented towards repetition. He began with the ethical
                  because that is where he finds Socrates. It is there that he changes the
                  first ethics into the new ethics. Again, you seem to be missing the category
                  of the absolute disjunction that finds Socrates already in the position SK
                  wants to move from. If Socrates were not already in the position SK finds
                  him, he, SK, would not be giving him the time of day. There has to be
                  something special about Socrates.<< (Quote Two)

                  >>Socrates is already across that 'infinitely broad ditch' and that it is
                  from that 'across' side that the distinction between the two ethics, or
                  touches of eternity, must be made. It is this 'infinitely broad ditch' that
                  separates the esthetic from the ethical
                  that separates our respective views and allows you to see a paradox where I
                  don't see one.<< (Quote Three)

                  >>Let me offer a long quote and a short quote in which I see him separating
                  the ethical into two categories; that of recollection and that of
                  repetition. It is this 'new condition' that goes beyond Socrates. Note the
                  discontinuity and the chasm he places between the old and the new in the
                  first quote, and the explicit difference he makes in the second quote.<<
                  (Quote Four)

                  In these four quotes, you talk about an "infinitely broad ditch" (which you
                  also call the "absolute disjunction") and a "chasm".

                  The "infinitely broad ditch" or "absolute disjunction" is between the
                  aesthetic sphere and the ethical sphere, while "the chasm" is between the
                  old ethics of recollection and the new ethics of repetition. This chasm is
                  also described as a "discontinuity".

                  Here are some puzzles about all this:

                  Puzzle One: In quotes one, two and three you seem to be saying that Socrates
                  has made the leap to the ethical sphere of existence. However in your
                  interpretation of PF you describe the transition from error to truth, the
                  transition involving "re-birth" as the transition from the aesthetic sphere
                  to the ethical sphere. But in PF, Socrates is on the pre-transition side of
                  the infinitely broad ditch. Isn't this an inconsistency in your view?

                  Puzzle Two: You seem to think there are two transitions - the ditch
                  transition described in quotes one, two and three, and the chasm transition
                  described in quote four. I though you were basically a "one-transition"
                  person?

                  Puzzle Three: On your interpretation, Climacus wants the reader to start
                  with Socrates, and move on from there. But surely, Kierkegaard thought that
                  most of his readers had not even got as far as Socrates, so shouldn't he
                  have had something to say to help his reader get as far as Socrates first?
                  If, as you suggest, K wanted to start with Socrates, was he only writing for
                  those rare readers who had already made the infinite leap which you refer to
                  as "the absolute disjunction"?

                  Yours, puzzled as ever,

                  Jim Stuart
                • Don Anderson
                  Will Yes, there is a basic difference between us which is broad and deep. It cannot be explained in words but some traces can be exposed. The major issue here
                  Message 8 of 30 , Feb 12, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Will
                    Yes, there is a basic difference between us which is broad and deep. It
                    cannot be explained in words but some traces can be exposed.

                    The major issue here is that you see SK or more specifically Climacus in CUP
                    (and I gather before that in PF discussing the ethics of the ethical stage.
                    I disagree with that completely and we have gone over this before. The
                    ethics of the ethical stage is discussed in the second half of E/O as well
                    as in parts of "Stages" and some other places to a lesser degree. It is also
                    discussed in PF and CUP but as contrast to the ethics of Religiousness B
                    (which I called the second ethics in my post).

                    I gather that you are saying that what I called first ethics applies to the
                    aesthetic stage and that what I have called the second ethic applies to the
                    other stages inclusively. I think that the proper and best reading is that
                    the aesthetic stage has no ethics at all while the ethical stage and
                    Religiousness A have an ethic of immanence (what I have called the first or
                    Socratic ethics) and Religiousness B has an ethic of transcendence (what I
                    have called the second ethics). I should add for the sake of clarity that
                    religiousness B retains the ethic of immanence and also the aesthetic but
                    they are transformed by the transcendent and this is critical.

                    At one point below you said, "The notion of 'same ethics' for A and B opens
                    up the
                    door to meanings I do not intend." I don't understand this for it seems to
                    contradict what I have described as my understanding of your contentions
                    above. Please elaborate on what is opened up that you do not intend.

                    The real issue is that of immanence vs. transcendence and to see this
                    difference clearly. Which of these has the possibility of true
                    self-transcendence which is the leap.


                    More to come

                    Don

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com
                    [mailto:kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Will Brown
                    Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 10:59 AM
                    To: kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [Kierkegaardian] The Two Ethics


                    Hi Don, what follows is the first response to your response. It is
                    late because I have been trying to rewrite it to cover what I see as a
                    basic misunderstanding on your part of what I am saying. Since none of
                    the rewrites fit the bill, here is the original response. If it
                    doesn't work, ask again.

                    = = == === =====

                    > Will, Let me first say that I don't consider our discussion a
                    dispute. I hold no hard and fast interpretation. What I say is the way
                    I understand it now but that may change or not. <

                    Oh heavens, Don, a dispute sounds like so much more fun than a
                    discussion. What, no hyperbole allowed? Ok, discussion it is…

                    I disagree!
                    = = == === =====
                    Ok, fire away. Several answers coming up. No guarantee that you will
                    see my answers as answers, but that seems to be the way of our, uh,
                    discussion. I shall operate under the assumption here that our
                    difficulty lies in a basic misunderstanding of some sort, which is to
                    say that we have not yet found the core of our, umm, dispute. I think
                    I know what it is; but let's see…

                    = = == === =====

                    > The background for the first question comes from the fact that I
                    said that the first ethic applies to the ethics stage and perhaps
                    religiousness A. You question religiousness A and assert that it seems
                    to support the first ethics in CUP. It sounds like you are asserting
                    that CUP has basically the same ethics for both Religiousness A and B.
                    Is that correct? <

                    This question does not reflect what I have said, but perhaps reflects
                    what you think I am saying. You defined first and second ethics as
                    follows:

                    > First ethics: immanental, metaphysical, recollection, ideal,
                    judging, ignorance, looks to past
                    > Second ethics: transcendental, existence and dogmatics, revelation,
                    actual, loving, looks to present and future

                    Then you had said, "First ethics applies most clearly to the ideal
                    type the ethical phase and perhaps Religiousness A while the second
                    ethics applies to the religiousness B ideal type"

                    My response was, and continues to be, that the ethics that is the
                    subjectivity/inwardness that SK addresses in CUP as the passageway to
                    the religious, whether to A or beyond to B is of the new ethics, the
                    second ethics, and not the first as I see you claiming it to be.

                    Maybe you are not claiming that, which could account for our obvious
                    confusion here. The notion of 'same ethics' for A and B opens up the
                    door to meanings I do not intend.

                    = = == === =====

                    > Second I want to ask if you accept that the ethical stage is all
                    about the first ethics or do you disagree? If you disagree could you
                    provide supporting arguments. <

                    First ethics? Which first ethics? Your use the term leaves me confused
                    as to what you mean.

                    I do not accept that the ethical stage as described in CUP is all
                    about the first ethics, what you describe as the Socratic ethics; it
                    is about the second ethics, the new, that which goes beyond Socrates'
                    first ethics. You seem to suggest that the 'going beyond' is reserved
                    to the movement from A to B, while I am saying that the going beyond
                    begins with /Fragments/ and extends into CUP right from the beginning.
                    That is the thrust of my objection to your premise.

                    Here is my guess as to what is going on here in our, uh, discussion.
                    SK has a Socrates problem. Look at what he says about Socrates on Hong
                    205/Lowrie 183: "Socratic ignorance is an analogue to the category of
                    the absurd, except…" and "Socratic inwardness in existing is an
                    analogue to faith, except…" It's the exception baby! I think you see
                    the Socrates problem being solved in the leap from A to B. I am saying
                    that he acknowledges the problem while putting together the ethical he
                    discusses in this chapter, Chapter II of Section II, and that the
                    beyond Socrates begins with the ethical sphere.

                    Religiously, you are right; the problem of Socrates is not solved
                    until the shift from A to B, but CUP is also about the setup to that
                    shift. The problem of Socrates that began in /Fragments/ and was
                    continued in the /Postscript/; it's all about going beyond Socrates.

                    = = == === =====

                    > Finally, I couldn't make out what you were saying about §'s from
                    pages 387 - 555 other than they were backwards which is obvious
                    because Climacus points it out if for no other reason. So let me ask
                    if you agree that pages 387 - 555 are about religiousness A and that
                    pages in CUP after 555 are about religiousness B. Specifically that
                    §'s 1 - 3 on pages 387 - 555 are about A and §'s 1 - 3 on pages 570 -
                    586 are about B. <

                    "The issue set forth (see Section II, Chapter IV) was an
                    existence-issue and as such pathos-filled and dialectical. The first
                    subdivision (A), the pathos-filled part, the relation to an eternal
                    happiness, has been discussed. Now we shall proceed to the dialectical
                    subdivision (B), which is the decisive part for the issue. The
                    religiousness that has been discussed up until now and for the sake of
                    brevity will now be termed Religiousness A and is not specifically
                    Christian religiousness. On the other hand, the dialectical is
                    decisive only insofar as it is joined together with the pathos-filled
                    and gives rise to the new pathos." (CUP, Hong, p. 555; Lowrie, p. 493)

                    I would agree that SK says that such is the case. Since it is his
                    show, I would take him at his word. However, there is much after page
                    555 in which he lays out the process from the esthetic to Rel-B, and
                    much comparison of A & B to each other. See in particular the section
                    titled /The Intermediate Clause between A and B/, 555-561.

                    I would say that the question between us has to do with where we see
                    SK slipping in that difference between the Socratic and the
                    Christianity he is aiming to describe. I cannot dispute your general
                    view because Rel-B was coined to separate the anthropological from the
                    decisively Christian. If I understand our bone of contention here, I
                    think the following quote speaks to my point; that leap to the ethical
                    cannot be bypassed and is therefore part of the process of becoming a
                    Christian in the meaning SK gives to the term:

                    "What has been intimated here has been emphasized in /Fragments/
                    frequently enough, namely, that there is no direct and immediate
                    transformation to Christianity, and that therefore all those who in
                    that way want to give a rhetorical push in order to bring one into
                    Christianity or even help one into it by a thrashing—they are all
                    deceivers—no, they know not what they do." (CUP, Hong, p. 49; Lowrie
                    p. 47)

                    = = == === =====

                    > I hope others will weigh in on these questions as well. Don <

                    I would hope the same. ----willy







                    Yahoo! Groups Links
                  • Jim Stuart
                    Dear Don, Just to say I completely agree with what you say in your post (of today) to Willy. I particularly agree with you final statement that the real issue
                    Message 9 of 30 , Feb 12, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dear Don,

                      Just to say I completely agree with what you say in your post (of today) to
                      Willy. I particularly agree with you final statement that "the real issue is
                      that of immanence vs. transcendence and to see this difference clearly".

                      I'm sorry to have jumped into your conversation with Willy. I hope my
                      frequent posts have not been too much of a distraction in your own
                      conversation with Willy.

                      Yours,

                      Jim Stuart
                    • Médéric Laitier
                      Dear James, Not to worry, I didn t take the expression of your doubts concerning Socrates faith as an offending opposition to me but as a sincere seek for
                      Message 10 of 30 , Feb 13, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear James,

                        Not to worry, I didn't take the expression of your doubts concerning
                        Socrates' faith as an offending opposition to me but as a sincere
                        seek for accuracy and the truth for yourself.

                        Therefore I accept very willingly your apologies eventhough I am
                        more than a bit sceptical about their being necessary.

                        Should there have been something I have missed, I am furthermore
                        willing to assure you of my forgiveness of it. As I often and
                        perhaps more than necessary say, /as a principle*/ I might be wrong
                        so all questions are quite welcome; even more so since they may help
                        me to ascertain myself within the truth. In fact it seems that you
                        have identified a passage in CUP where

                        Kierkegaard as Climacus ties a little more explicitly Socrates and
                        the concept of faith so that I may more securely consider Socrates'
                        relation to the truth as some sort of faith in K.'s conception.
                        Therefore instead of only intaking your apologies, let me thank you!

                        It is a renewed pleasure to be reading your inquiries and to see the
                        susbstance they bring up. I am not at leisure to offering
                        cicumstantiated contributions at present nor in the mood for
                        dissipation so I'll keep myself in the extatic silence of an obscure
                        retirement and appreciate for my own and exclusive benefit the
                        advances of the present debate.

                        If I may be allowed, James, a word to Willy /en passant/...

                        You have been, it seems to me, doubly-reflectively malign-doing,
                        honorable William Brown Esq., to refuse your help to Sir Richard of
                        the Maloyance. How unethical of you, I dare say! Knowing the little
                        that I know, how twice and duplicitly unethical of you! Really, this
                        is quite... Quite... Inappropriate a use of double reflections. You
                        must repent. You must repent.

                        Yours sincerely,
                        Mederic

                        http://www.hidepark21.org/

                        * not to imply that in reality the contrary is true; sometimes
                        priciples and the reality do

                        accord with one another...

                        ----- ---- --- -- - -- --- ---- -----


                        in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kierkegaardians/message/2596

                        James Stuart wrote:

                        "So, to summarise, Socrates is held up as a person of great
                        inwardness, perhaps even of some kind of "maximum" of inwardness,
                        possessing a kind of faith, but a kind of faith to be clearly
                        distinguished from Christian faith.

                        As an aside, I must apologise to Mederic at this point. In a recent
                        post he talked of the faith of Socrates, and I replied by doubting
                        that Kierkegaard ever used the word "faith" in relation to Socrates.
                        I was wrong. I am sorry, Mederic."
                      • John Anngeister
                        Some things regarding the ethical man (knight of infinite resignation): The moral man often finds it difficult to perform his duty; ... He performs it
                        Message 11 of 30 , Feb 14, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Some things regarding the ethical man (knight of infinite
                          resignation):

                          "The moral man often finds it difficult to perform his duty; ... He
                          performs it notwithstanding - it must be done; he subdues his
                          feelings, and stifles his agony. ... the sacrifice of his deepest
                          desires and his most cherished feelings is demanded of him.

                          "He obeys the law of duty in his breast, absolutely because it is a
                          law unto him; and he does whatever reveals itself as his duty,
                          absolutely because it is duty. But does he therein understand
                          himself?

                          " - does he know what this duty, to which at every moment he
                          consecrates his whole existence, really is in itself and what is its
                          ultimate aim? So little does he know this, that he declares loudly
                          it ought to be so absolutely because it ought; and makes this very
                          impossibility of comprehending and understanding the law - this
                          absolute abstraction from the meaning of the law, and the
                          consequences of the deed, - a characteristic mark of genuine
                          obedience.

                          And yet...
                          "... However perfect may be his conduct, - that is, his outward and
                          apparent existence, - there is still at the root of his inward being
                          discord, obscurity, and bondage, and therefore a want of absolute
                          dignity."

                          [my note: ie., because he has followed duty for duty's sake,
                          abandoning his inclination to follow "his deepest desires and his
                          most cherished feelings" yet failing to find the key to their
                          rediscovery in the very act of abandonment]


                          Regarding the religious man (knight of faith):

                          "For the religious man ... That which thus strives against our Will,
                          and which is so unwilling to die, is imperfect life; which, even
                          because it is life, struggles for continued existence, but must cease
                          to be as soon as its place is occupied by a higher and nobler life.

                          "... The religious man, indeed, does all those things without
                          exception which the law of duty enjoins; but he does them not as a
                          religious man, for he was already bound to do them, independently of
                          all religion, as a purely moral man;

                          "- as a religious man, he does the same things, but he does them with
                          a nobler, freer inspiration.

                          "What the moral man calls duty and law, - what is this to the
                          religious man? The most spiritual bloom of life, - his element in
                          which alone he can breathe."


                          Sound like Kierkegaard? It's not. But the writer is in fact a
                          philosopher whose work SK mentions in his earliest papers.


                          At the end of SK's life, his personal library contained a complete
                          set (11 volumes) of this thinker's collected work (pub. 1834-44),
                          plus a separate copy of the book referenced in the Papirer. By way
                          of contrast, he possessed only partial collections of Kant,
                          Schelling, and Hegel.

                          Like SK, the life and work of [ - - - - - - ] ended too soon (age
                          51). This deep thinker and man of action died three months before
                          SK's first birthday, a civilian victim of a typhus afflicting patriot
                          troops engaged in defending his city against the army of Napoleon.

                          Who is the unnamed? Like Kierkegaard, a man misunderstood and even
                          maligned in his day (and who is even still much misunderstood). So
                          much so that if I were to reveal this name, any one of our webbie
                          intellects here would be sure to Google up a heap of surface
                          misinformation regarding him, and pass it off (hey presto) as their
                          own considered opinion. I'll mention it later, and leave it for now
                          as a trivia question.

                          Everyone dedicated to finding the truth at all costs must end up at
                          last "at the feet" of one or more persons who has been forced into
                          the role of societal skandalon.

                          Just stirring the pot here. hello all.


                          -John


                          --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Don Anderson" <don@...>
                          wrote:
                          >
                          > Will
                          > Yes, there is a basic difference between us which is broad and deep.
                        • Don Anderson
                          ... From: kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com [mailto:kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Jim Stuart Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 1:44 PM To:
                          Message 12 of 30 , Feb 16, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            -----Original Message-----
                            From: kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com
                            [mailto:kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Jim Stuart
                            Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 1:44 PM
                            To: kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: [Kierkegaardian] Re: The Two Ethics


                            Dear Don,

                            Just to say I completely agree with what you say in your post (of today) to
                            Willy. I particularly agree with you final statement that "the real issue is
                            that of immanence vs. transcendence and to see this difference clearly".

                            I'm sorry to have jumped into your conversation with Willy. I hope my
                            frequent posts have not been too much of a distraction in your own
                            conversation with Willy.

                            Yours,

                            Jim Stuart





                            Yahoo! Groups Links
                          • Don Anderson
                            Dear Jim, Thanks. Feel free to add to any conversation I am in. You are always welcome and always add something important. Don ... From:
                            Message 13 of 30 , Feb 16, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Dear Jim,
                              Thanks. Feel free to add to any conversation I am in. You are always welcome
                              and always add something important.
                              Don

                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com
                              [mailto:kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Jim Stuart
                              Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 1:44 PM
                              To: kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: [Kierkegaardian] Re: The Two Ethics


                              Dear Don,

                              Just to say I completely agree with what you say in your post (of today) to
                              Willy. I particularly agree with you final statement that "the real issue is
                              that of immanence vs. transcendence and to see this difference clearly".

                              I'm sorry to have jumped into your conversation with Willy. I hope my
                              frequent posts have not been too much of a distraction in your own
                              conversation with Willy.

                              Yours,

                              Jim Stuart





                              Yahoo! Groups Links
                            • Will Brown
                              Hi Jim, this must be a chunky reply. It is late because I am now aging my replies in French oak; I hear it adds subtle nuances. ... suggests to me one way of
                              Message 14 of 30 , Feb 16, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hi Jim, this must be a chunky reply. It is late because I am now aging
                                my replies in French oak; I hear it adds subtle nuances.

                                > Dear Willy, I find your last post difficult to understand, but it
                                suggests to me one way of formulating the difference between us which
                                we both might accept.

                                >On your reading of both PF and CUP, the Socratic position, the first
                                ethics, is the starting point. It is the departure point for going
                                beyond Socrates. Going beyond Socrates means going, first of all, to
                                the second ethics, and then to the religious. This fits you own
                                outlook, as you have also gone beyond Socrates, and can look back at
                                the Socratic first ethics from the higher vantage point of second ethics.

                                >On my reading of both PF and CUP, the Socratic position is the
                                highest position within immanence, the highest position before God's
                                revelation of the absolute paradox. Any "going beyond Socrates"
                                involves divine revelation. This fits my own outlook in the sense
                                that I am a long way from even reaching the level of Socrates.
                                Socrates' "passion for the infinite" is at a level of subjectivity
                                that I can barely glimpse over the horizon. As such I see Socrates'
                                position as a position to aim for, and I seek to identify it on the
                                map Climacus sketches in CUP. I see Climacus as outlining a route to
                                deeper and deeper subjectivity. You are not interested in a "process
                                of moving from P to Q to R", hence you are not interested in locating
                                Socrates in relation to the three (or four) spheres of existence.

                                >Do you agree with this way of characterising the differences between
                                us? <
                                - - -- --- ----- --------
                                Yes, we have an agreement on what our disagreement is, or rather, how
                                it is structured. Without that agreement, we are doomed to spin in the
                                circle of our disagreement. Of course, we had to spin a bit before the
                                hub difference made itself known. What fascinates me about such a
                                process is that for the hub difference to become clear, a certain
                                distancing is required, perhaps, a reflection that steps out of itself
                                and looks at its own movement.

                                I can see your position as a valid position, not that it needs
                                validation from me; better put, I can see the sense you make of it.

                                A quibble; it is not that I am not interested in the process from P to
                                R, for in fact I am deeply interested in it. The case before us is our
                                respective interpretations of SK. I have my own scheme for that
                                process and it also has three separate spheres in it, and a tag sphere
                                that I could define as grounded not on the God-man, but on Presence.

                                And yes, your delineation of your view fits you as mine fits me; both
                                require a subjective reflection for the definition of subjectivity; as
                                it should be in things Kierkegaardian.

                                = = == === =====

                                >At the risk of saying the same thing, or asking the same question,
                                for the fourth time, let me press you again on the position of
                                Socrates in relation to the second ethics.

                                >Here are some of the things you wrote in your two chunky posts:

                                >>[Climacus] is referring to E2. And yes, in the sense of his use of
                                irony, Socrates was an ethicist; but what does that have to do with
                                the ethical sphere he sets up in CUP to allow the 'issue' to be
                                manifest, other than being the ethic whose direction must be changed
                                from recollection to repetition? It is here that I see you missing
                                that absolute disjunction Socrates has already crossed, which
                                necessitates SK's need to go beyond.<< (Quote One)

                                >>[Climacus] speaks about only one ethical sphere of existence. That
                                sphere of existence is oriented towards repetition. He began with the
                                ethical because that is where he finds Socrates. It is there that he
                                changes the first ethics into the new ethics. Again, you seem to be
                                missing the category of the absolute disjunction that finds Socrates
                                already in the position SK wants to move from. If Socrates were not
                                already in the position SK finds him, he, SK, would not be giving him
                                the time of day. There has to be something special about Socrates.<<
                                (Quote Two)

                                >>Socrates is already across that 'infinitely broad ditch' and that it
                                is from that 'across' side that the distinction between the two
                                ethics, or touches of eternity, must be made. It is this 'infinitely
                                broad ditch' that separates the esthetic from the ethical that
                                separates our respective views and allows you to see a paradox where I
                                don't see one.<< (Quote Three)

                                >>Let me offer a long quote and a short quote in which I see him
                                separating the ethical into two categories; that of recollection and
                                that of repetition. It is this 'new condition' that goes beyond
                                Socrates. Note the discontinuity and the chasm he places between the
                                old and the new in the first quote, and the explicit difference he
                                makes in the second quote.<<
                                (Quote Four)

                                > In these four quotes, you talk about an "infinitely broad ditch"
                                (which you also call the "absolute disjunction") and a "chasm".

                                > The "infinitely broad ditch" or "absolute disjunction" is between
                                the aesthetic sphere and the ethical sphere, while "the chasm" is
                                between the old ethics of recollection and the new ethics of
                                repetition. This chasm is also described as a "discontinuity".

                                > Here are some puzzles about all this:
                                - - -- --- ----- --------
                                Since your puzzles refer to the above, I have repeated your references
                                for reference. I will take the liberty of adding the long and short
                                quotes your mention as you have referenced them:

                                "Sin, then, belongs to ethics only insofar as upon this concept it is
                                shipwrecked with the aid of repentance.*

                                *In his work /Fear and Trembling/, Johannes de Silentio makes several
                                observations concerning this point. In this book, the author several
                                times allows the desired ideality of esthetics to be shipwrecked on
                                the required ideality of ethics, in order through these collisions to
                                bring to light the religious ideality as the ideality that precisely
                                is the ideality of actuality, and therefore just as desirable as that
                                of esthetics and not as impossible as the ideality of ethics. This is
                                accomplished in such a way that the religious ideality breaks forth in
                                the dialectical leap and in the positive mood—"behold all things have
                                become new" as well as in the negative mood that is the passion of the
                                absurd to which the concept 'repetition' corresponds. Either all
                                existence [/Tilværelson/] comes to an end in the demand of ethics, or
                                a new condition is provided and the whole of life and of existence
                                begins anew, not through the immanent continuity with the former
                                existence, which is a contradiction, but through a transcendence. This
                                transition separates repetition from the former existence
                                [/Tilværelse/] by such a chasm that one can only figuratively say that
                                the former and the latter relate themselves to each other as the
                                totality of living creatures in the ocean relates itself to those in
                                the air and to those upon the earth." (CA, Thomte, p.17)

                                "For the Greeks, the eternal lies behind as the past that can only be
                                entered backwards.*

                                *Here the category that I maintain should be kept in mind, namely,
                                repetition, by which eternity is entered forwards." (CA, Thomte, p.90)

                                = = == === =====

                                > Puzzle One: In quotes one, two and three you seem to be saying that
                                Socrates has made the leap to the ethical sphere of existence. However
                                in your interpretation of PF you describe the transition from error to
                                truth, the transition involving "re-birth" as the transition from the
                                aesthetic sphere to the ethical sphere. But in PF, Socrates is on the
                                pre-transition side of the infinitely broad ditch. Isn't this an
                                inconsistency in your view? <
                                - - -- --- ----- --------
                                I don't see one. I simply would not place Socrates in the
                                pre-transition side of the infinitely broad ditch. I say that SK picks
                                him up on the transition side. I say that where he disagrees with
                                Socrates is on the structure of the revelation. The question is one of
                                how the error is revealed, which relates to the view of the error
                                revealed.

                                = = == === =====

                                Puzzle Two: You seem to think there are two transitions - the ditch
                                transition described in quotes one, two and three, and the chasm
                                transition described in quote four. I though you were basically a
                                "one-transition" person?
                                - - -- --- ----- --------
                                Ok, the chasm bit. I see what you are asking.

                                >>Let me offer a long quote and a short quote in which I see him
                                separating the ethical into two categories; that of recollection and
                                that of repetition. It is this 'new condition' that goes beyond
                                Socrates. Note the discontinuity and the chasm he places between the
                                old and the new in the first quote, and the explicit difference he
                                makes in the second quote.<<
                                (Quote Four)

                                Obviously, looking at the long quote, I did not make sense. It looks
                                like I had two thoughts going at once and conflated the two. If I had
                                it to do over, I surely would word it differently. Good catch!

                                = = == === =====

                                > Puzzle Three: On your interpretation, Climacus wants the reader to
                                start with Socrates, and move on from there. But surely, Kierkegaard
                                thought that most of his readers had not even got as far as Socrates,
                                so shouldn't he have had something to say to help his reader get as
                                far as Socrates first? If, as you suggest, K wanted to start with
                                Socrates, was he only writing for those rare readers who had already
                                made the infinite leap which you refer to as "the absolute disjunction"? <
                                - - -- --- ----- --------
                                Several different lines of thoughts appear here. I'll grab one and let
                                the rest follow as they will, if they will. If SK is laying out the
                                P-Q-R process and there is a necessity, as he states to get to R
                                through Q, then either he knows that or he is speculating. If he knows
                                that, then he would more than likely, or again, it would make good
                                sense, to put things in terms of Q. If there were, in fact, a
                                disconnect between P & Q, then P would always misunderstand Q and he
                                would in fact be writing for those rare readers who knew Q.

                                There is some of that in SK's writings, isn't there, where he has said
                                that he had written some things that could heretics could not
                                understand it. I don't remember where I saw that, but I remember it.

                                There is also the possibility, one I think is fact (see first appended
                                quote), that his writings, up to the time of his attack upon
                                Christendom, were an emptying out process, where he was trying to put
                                his truth into words, specifically Christian terms. I don't know,
                                other than to say that I think he covered his rear by writing
                                /Purity/, which is definitely a guide book to the transition. Turn off
                                the future, and let the past dissolve in the present. The remainder is
                                who one /is/.

                                Well, I don't know that I said much beyond what we have already said
                                between us, but I figured you did deserve a reply; something about
                                being ethical? ----willy.

                                "What I have understood as the task of my authorship has been done. It
                                is one idea from Either/Or to Anti-Climacus, the idea of religiousness
                                in reflection. The task has occupied totally, for it has occupied me
                                religiously; I have understood the completion of this authorship as my
                                duty, as a responsibility resting upon me. Whether anyone has wanted
                                to buy or to read has concerned me very little." (For
                                Self-Examination, Supplement, Hong, p. 224) (JP VI 6770) (1851)

                                "N.B. It is best to remove the allusions to the dogma of hereditary
                                sin which are found in chapter 2 (and anywhere else they are found).
                                It would take me too far out, or farther than is needed here or is
                                useful. What is appropriately stated about sin – that orthodoxy
                                teaches that there must be a revelation to show what sin is—is not
                                said with respect to the doctrine of hereditary sin." (SUD, Hong,
                                Supplement, p. 156) (Pap. VIII² B 166, n.d., 1848)
                              • Will Brown
                                ... deep. It cannot be explained in words but some traces can be exposed.
                                Message 15 of 30 , Feb 16, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  > Will Yes, there is a basic difference between us which is broad and
                                  deep. It cannot be explained in words but some traces can be exposed. <
                                  - - -- --- ----- --------
                                  I find this difference fascinating. I have not yet have found the
                                  structure of our disagreement, but my engineering genes are working on
                                  it even as we speak.

                                  = = == === =====

                                  The major issue here is that you see SK or more specifically Climacus
                                  in CUP (and I gather before that in PF discussing the ethics of the
                                  ethical stage. I disagree with that completely and we have gone over
                                  this before. The ethics of the ethical stage is discussed in the
                                  second half of E/O as well as in parts of "Stages" and some other
                                  places to a lesser degree. It is also discussed in PF and CUP but as
                                  contrast to the ethics of Religiousness B (which I called the second
                                  ethics in my post).
                                  - - -- --- ----- --------
                                  I am not sure I follow that, but I can see that it does represent out
                                  difference, so I will not ask for clarification.

                                  = = == === =====

                                  >I gather that you are saying that what I called first ethics applies
                                  to the aesthetic stage and that what I have called the second ethic
                                  applies to the other stages inclusively. <
                                  - - -- --- ----- --------
                                  You gather incorrectly, which tells me that you and I have a
                                  disconnect in understanding working here. The first ethics, as you
                                  have described them, does not, I repeat, does not, represent the
                                  esthetic stage in my thinking. I can not imagine how you reach that
                                  conclusion.

                                  = = == === =====

                                  >I think that the proper and best reading is that the aesthetic stage
                                  has no ethics at all while the ethical stage and Religiousness A have
                                  an ethic of immanence (what I have called the first or Socratic
                                  ethics) and Religiousness B has an ethic of transcendence (what I have
                                  called the second ethics). I should add for the sake of clarity that
                                  religiousness B retains the ethic of immanence and also the aesthetic
                                  but they are transformed by the transcendent and this is critical. <
                                  - - -- --- ----- --------
                                  Ok, I see our structure. It mirrors the structure of where we have
                                  placed the leap. You place the leap between A and B, as do both Jim
                                  and James. You place, in your added comment for clarity, the ethical
                                  of the immanent back into A and its ethical predecessor by dint of its
                                  being retained in B. Of course, you must un-transform them in the process.

                                  Neat, we are essentially saying the same thing very differently. Where
                                  you make the change from recollection to repetition reflect back into
                                  the ethico-religious sphere, I say that SK tweaks the definition of
                                  the ethico-religious sphere to fit B. I will not say that you are
                                  wrong. I will say that from my point of view he actually says that he
                                  is tweaking the meaning of the ethical to fit the A to B movement.
                                  That is all I am claiming.

                                  Now that I see where our difference lies, I'll drop my attempts to lay
                                  out my view; it ends in an agreement to disagree on where we put the
                                  emphasis.

                                  = = == === =====

                                  > At one point below you said, "The notion of 'same ethics' for A and
                                  B opens up the door to meanings I do not intend." I don't understand
                                  this for it seems to contradict what I have described as my
                                  understanding of your contentions above. Please elaborate on what is
                                  opened up that you do not intend. <
                                  - - -- --- ----- --------
                                  I saw it as tying the universal good to the Christian God, and I
                                  simply did not want to go there, that's all. The reason? I don't
                                  believe a God is necessary for the Good to be.

                                  = = == === =====

                                  > The real issue is that of immanence vs. transcendence and to see
                                  this difference clearly. Which of these has the possibility of true
                                  self-transcendence which is the leap. More to come Don <
                                  - - -- --- ----- --------
                                  Which means that you have you eye on the shift from Religiousness A to
                                  B. And yes, for the Christianity that SK is proposing, that difference
                                  would be crucial. I have added two quotes to be taken however you want
                                  to take them.

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