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

Re: The dual nature of Kierkegaard's work

Expand Messages
  • Will Brown
    Hi, Médéric. The distinction I proposed between the pseudonymous and non-pseudonymous was derived from my reading of both with an eye to discerning a
    Message 1 of 2 , Nov 15, 2004
      Hi, Médéric. The distinction I proposed between the pseudonymous and
      non-pseudonymous was derived from my reading of both with an eye to
      discerning a difference. The distinction I proposed was also
      engendered by my view of a singular message being spoken to in both,
      where the difference was not in the message, but in its explication.
      So, I could not say that the distinction I proposed was his
      distinction because it was only my reading of a distinction between
      the two categories.

      Let me run that through again. Maybe I can say it differently.
      Kierkegaard decided which of his writings went where. That was his
      decision as it rose from his understanding of the difference, or,
      perhaps, the choice created the difference; I don't know. The most I
      can do is look at his decisions and make the most of it in light of
      what I see as the theme, or core, of his writings. That is what I did.
      There is a book in English, titled Point of View, edited and
      translated by Hong, that gives much source material on the subject,
      but even there, the closest I can come to the reason for his actual
      choice is where he thinks out loud about making the choice; I cannot
      get into his head.

      Ok, I think I am now in a position to answer your question of
      placement of CUP and SUD. If his choice exemplified the distinction he
      used to choose what belonged where, i.e., not flipping a coin, and if
      my proposed distinction was based upon the difference I saw in his
      choices, then, if I am to be consistent, I am constrained to agree
      with him. However, since this particular distinction is not of the
      bright line variety, as I see the distinction between the esthetic and
      ethico-religious spheres as being, there is room to play, which means
      that I can take a flyer.

      My guess would be that CUP is definitely pseudonymous material. It has
      a disjunctive form about it that requires the qualitative dialectic
      for it to be seen as such. As to SUD, it is not so clear cut. The form
      is there, but it reminds me much of Purity of Heart as more of a guide
      than anything else. I guess that since SK put it the same category as
      CUP, I'll take the easy way out and say the same. If you were looking
      for something more profound than that, sorry. Where would you say they
      belong? willy

      --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, Médéric Laitier
      <mederic.laitier@t...> wrote:
      > Dear Will Brown,
      > In an earlier posting, you proposed a distinction between religious
      works and pseudonymous ones in SK's work (last 13th october). I think
      I can even remember that you presented this distinction as Kierkegaard's.
      > I would like to know in which category of works you file CUP and
      Sickness unto death.
      > Sincerely,
      > Médéric Laitier
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.