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

Re: On being judged.

Expand Messages
  • John Anngeister
    Een, thank you for taking the trouble to offer your analysis of the Danish. I feel I am much obliged to you for it, and apologize for the delay in my
    Message 1 of 2 , Aug 29 11:42 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Een, thank you for taking the trouble to offer your analysis
      of the Danish. I feel I am much obliged to you for it, and
      apologize for the delay in my response. Saturday was a day
      of attending to responsibilities, or rather (I confess) a day
      in which they could no longer be postponed. And today I spent
      the afternoon in a college library about 25 miles distant,
      after stopping by church this morning just long enough to hear the

      I wonder if "Sanselige Øie" is not distantly related to
      Kant's "Anschauung" (in English literally "outlook"), the
      power of mind by which our receptivity to sensations
      provides for the understanding the initial basis of our
      cognitive relation to objects outside us. "Anschauung"
      is translated "intuition" in most English versions of Kant,
      but this word is so loaded with baggage in English that Kant's
      meaning is easily lost to the casual reader.

      And thank you also for the reference to the Postscript. I will
      report back on my reading in a few days. You know, your stated
      aversion to quoting texts might need a review. The focus on a single
      author here, and the tempering of personal views with reference to
      places in his work, will preserve us from the usual hot/cold
      meandering and zero-context grandstanding of the larger
      existentialist lists.

      Today I found some references to a book which treats of Kierkegaard's
      philosophical debt to Kant (by Ronald Green, 1992), but it was not in
      the library's collection. Apparently Green has an idea that it was
      in SK's interest not to associate his thought too much with Kant's,
      in light of a conservative backlash to the critical philosophy that
      was operative in Copenhagen in the 30's. Delighted to find SK also
      studied Schleiermacher, whose book "On Religion" I am reading.

      Briefly; Kierkegaard is anti-Hegelian, and this is a role worthy also
      of the true Kantian. "The objective" whatever is very different in
      Hegel than it was in Kant. I agree with those who believe that
      Hegel "betrayed" the critical philosophy and moved idealism in a
      direction which Kant himself would not have supported. Kant's view
      of religion, on the other hand, was one which Kierkegaard could
      rightly take issue with. And it is one which Schleiermacher
      criticized with skill as well.


      --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Een Enkelte"
      <eenenkelte@y...> wrote:

      > 'Dersom det var saaledes som indbildsk Kløgt mener, stolt af ikke
      > bedrages, at man Intet skulde tro, som man ikke kan see med sit
      > sanselige Øie: da burde man først og fremmest lade være at troe paa
      > Kjerlighed.'
      > This passage corresponds to that in Hong, which reads: 'If it were
      > so, as....give up believing in love.'
      > It is 'sanselige Øie' which Hong translates as physical eye. The
      > is the adjectival form of 'sans' (sing.) 'sanser' (plur.); which in
      > the definite form, 'sanserne', may be translated as 'the senses'.
      > For example the five senses (sight, hearing, etc.) are in danish
      > called 'de fem sanser'.
      > Hong may quite understandably have struggled with this translation
      > point.
      > Danish (especially the danish of K.) is a much more concrete
      > than modern english, so eg 'the eye of the senses' would only
      > an even more abstract impression than 'the physical eye'; and 'the
      > sensual eye' would sound metaphorical.
      > Nevertheless, it may be helpful to note that 'sanselige' does have
      > use comparable to 'sensual' in english, such that 'sanselige Øie'
      > carries with it an associated meaning of 'the eye of sensuality',
      > aesthetic, in the sense used by many of the pseudonymous authors.
      > The passage reads powerfully in the danish, as loaded with meaning
      > and authorial intent. I suggest that the english language has not
      > been capable of expressing such rich, earthy compaction since the
      > time of Locke. Indeed, I would say that Locke manages to get away
      > with sounding so reasonable exactly because he is writing in that
      > language.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.