Re: On being judged.
- 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
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 email@example.com, "Een Enkelte"
> 'Dersom det var saaledes som indbildsk Kløgt mener, stolt af ikkeat
> bedrages, at man Intet skulde tro, som man ikke kan see med sitword
> sanselige Øie: da burde man først og fremmest lade være at troe paa
> 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 inlanguage
> 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
> Danish (especially the danish of K.) is a much more concrete
> than modern english, so eg 'the eye of the senses' would onlycreate
> an even more abstract impression than 'the physical eye'; and 'thea
> 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'ie
> 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