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

Re: A Short Quotation from Works of Love

Expand Messages
  • Médéric Laitier
    Dear James, You have written in message 5061, I think it was you and you alone but who knows... Perhaps you did it* as a gang: The stoic probably wouldn t use
    Message 1 of 90 , Dec 3, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear James,

      You have written in message 5061, I think it was you and you alone but
      who knows... Perhaps you did it* as a gang:

      "The stoic probably wouldn't use it, the Buddhist -might- prefer the
      word "compassion" and say that's what /we/ really mean by love, while
      the ethical-sphere Christian would certainly appropriate it, and
      probably in the same way you do in your description below."

      I am curious: "we" refers to... You and I? I am not aware to have
      participated to the redaction of this paper. We? Who is we? Did you
      mean James and James? James, are you a part of that we?

      Or was it some other we? In a word: who is we?

      Another question: can you - and I mean you alone - indicate the
      passage in K. upon which you ground and derive your consideration over
      the stoic and the Buddhist as opposed to the Christian. I'd be
      interested in having the exact reference of the passage. If you need
      time, please say so and please take it. I am in no hurry.

      Thank you for your coming answer (please be so kind as not erasing it
      before I have read it or I shall not know whether I should consider it
      or the fact that it was erased as the proper answer) and thank you for
      your restored trust. Have you heard of Ron lately? I have tried to get
      in touch with him but apparently he is no longer there. I hope he is fine.

      Yours sincerely,
      Mederic

      * the /emphasis/ around the "we" in this passage was added by the
      author of the present message to locate and indicate the object of his
      puzzlement.


      --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "James Rovira"
      <jamesrovira@...> wrote:
      >
      > Thanks for the useful response, Jim S. Since we seem to agree about
      > most points (I guess Ben would have to step in at this point and
      > tell us what he meant [...]
    • Médéric Laitier
      Oh! Thank you
      Message 90 of 90 , Dec 18, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Oh!
        Thank you

        --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "jimstuart46" <jjimstuart@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > Post 5183
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.