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

Re: [Kierkegaardians] Re: An even deeper inwardness?

Expand Messages
  • James Rovira
    Bill, how can you value paradox then talk about what we need to do to understand God, the Infinite, or eternal? I m hardly being cruel, Bill. I think that
    Message 1 of 44 , Dec 29, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Bill, how can you value paradox then talk about what we need to do to
      understand "God, the Infinite, or eternal?"

      I'm hardly being cruel, Bill. I think that most of what you say here has
      nothing really to do with most of Kierkegaard. All my last post said was
      this:

      <<Bill -- if you think that Kierkegaard ultimately defines personality in
      relationship to anything external to personality except God (which is
      discovered in the movement inward), then you misunderstand Kierkegaard.>>

      You should notice I haven't made any speculations about -you personally- --
      there's nothing in my last post that consists of a direct, personal insult,
      unless the truth or accuracy of your current understanding of Kiekergaard
      somehow forms the basis of your personality. I don't think it does, but it
      would be quite pathetic if that were the case. In my post, at any rate,
      there is no speculation on your motives or character.

      You, on the other hand, do so consistently with me: you say just in your
      last post that I am guilty of "cruelity" (whatever that is), that I am
      unable to "argue with reality" (I never thought I was arguing with reality,
      just with you), that I arrogantly measure all points from myself, and that I
      flatter myself. All this because I think you -might- misunderstand
      Kierkegaard.

      Anyway, if you can't understand these words:

      "Kierkegaard does not ultimately define personality in relationship to
      anything external except God."

      I can't explain them in any simpler terms. You simply have to read
      Kierkegaard for yourself to get it. I suggest you read The Sickness Unto
      Death, Philosophical Fragments, Fear and Trembling, and then Concluding
      Unscientific Postscript. Point of View might be a good one for you to read
      too. I'd suggest you read Repetition but I think that is the one
      Kierkegaard book you have read. Since you've gotten quite a bit out of it I
      suspect you may get quite a bit out of his other works as well.

      Jim R


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • James Rovira
      Here s some of what Hannay says about Kierkegaard s understanding of Hegel, and probably the passage I had in mind: As a quotation in the previous chapter
      Message 44 of 44 , Jan 2, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Here's some of what Hannay says about Kierkegaard's understanding of Hegel,
        and probably the passage I had in mind:

        "As a quotation in the previous chapter testifies, it is sometimes supposed
        that the main value of Kierkegaard's thought lies in its criticism of
        Hegel. This can have an unfortunate result. When it is found that
        Kierkegaard, either by ignorance or wilfully, frequently misses Hegel's
        point and has to be classified as a 'bad' philosopher in this regard, the
        supposed absence of any other significant regard can easily lead one to lose
        interest in him as a philosophical writer altogether." (Hannay,
        _Kierkegaard_, p. 21 -- this isn't the biography, but Hannay's overview of
        Kierkegaard's work by that title).

        Hannay goes on to say this is largely the product of only reading CUP,
        Concept of Anxiety, and SUD. Hannay's statement is embedded within his
        critique of the idea that Kierkegaard himself was a model for Hegel's
        description of the "unhappy consciousness."

        I said before that more recent criticism claims the apparent
        misunderstandings of Hegel in, say, Concept of Anxiety are really critiques
        of Danish Hegelianism, while Kierkegaard's assumptions at those points of
        critique are consistent with Hegel's. Jon Stewart's "Hegel and Adler in the
        Introduction to the Concept of Anxiety" makes this argument very effectively
        (Kierkegaard Studies, 2001 pp. 43-77) by comparing direct quotations between
        CA, Danish Hegelians, and Hegel.

        This doesn't mean, of course, that Kierkegaard doesn't disagree with Hegel
        on other points.

        I would like to add that it is deceptive to say that Kierkegaard was
        concerned with our "happiness." He repeatedly uses the phrase "eternal
        happiness" in CUP. The implications are very different.

        Jim R


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.