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

Re: Christian Repetition and Atheistic Ethicism

Expand Messages
  • jimstuart46
    Jim R., I think you are more impressed than myself by arguments for the closeness of Kant and Kierkegaard, because you look at things from the objective point
    Message 1 of 39 , Jan 1, 2007
      Jim R.,

      I think you are more impressed than myself by arguments for the
      closeness of Kant and Kierkegaard, because you look at things from
      the objective point of view.

      When I imagine the ethical individual, I do so "from the inside".
      Such a person has a passion for the infinite. This is a far cry from
      the cool Kantian who applies his Categorical Imperative before
      acting.

      I agree that both Kant and Kierkegaard think of the ethical sphere
      as the sphere of the universal. But for Kierkegaard this is cashed
      out in terms of the ethical individual being able to justify his own
      ethical actions both to himself and to others. There is a focus on
      the needs and well being of others, and a lack of focus on an
      incomprehensible, paradoxical God.

      With regard to love, the ethical person is only concerned with his
      own ethical reality and he does not consider the ethical reality of
      others, whether or not they will reciprocate his love. Such an
      individual is not concerned with abstract ethical theories which may
      include the objective proposition that all human beings have equal
      obligations to all other human beings.

      Jim Stuart
    • James Rovira
      If you want to know what I ve read from SK, Bill, I ve uploaded an unedited bibliography of my reading by and about Kierkegaard. It s in the Files section
      Message 39 of 39 , Jan 6, 2007
        If you want to know what I've read from SK, Bill, I've uploaded an unedited
        bibliography of my reading by and about Kierkegaard. It's in the "Files"
        section of this group's page at Yahoo. There may be a couple non-SK sources
        mixed in and it's not completely alphabetized, and there may be some
        duplication, but for the most part what I've read by and about K is on that
        list. I may be missing some sources too.

        But what you're essentially saying is that you trust what Hannay says
        without having read much of Kierkegaard yourself, so feel you are competent
        to judge what others say about Kierkegaard based upon your own lack of
        reading.

        You know, people who get published in peer review journals do disagree with
        Hannay sometimes.

        At any rate, as usual when you can't support what you're saying from your
        own reading, you turn to attacking me. Now I'm willing to accept statements
        like the following:

        "As usual your own understanding of Religiousness B lacks any connection
        to what Kierkegaard writes."

        If you could support them from your own reading of, say, Concluding
        Unscientific Postscript. Or, for that matter, if you were reading my own
        posts or the posts of others very carefully at all.

        One example:

        Jim S did not say my posts were irresponsible. I said -one- of his replies
        to me was irresponsible. You are misremembering something I said to Jim S,
        and then getting it backwards, thinking it was something Jim S said to me.
        He felt in the post complaining about me that I wasn't acknowledging what he
        saw as an inherent contradiction in my words. So far as I can tell, though,
        we've cleared that up.

        I agree that Kierkegaard's emphasis is on the "how" is important, yes. As I
        agree that "what is a self?" is probably the central issue in Kierkegaard.
        It's way off to say I'm "ignoring" it -- as I've said repeatedly, I'm not
        obligated to talk about any one subject in every discussion of every subject
        on this forum.

        I have never said anything about shame. Again, you're making that up and
        attributing it to me. And, as usual, I asked you to support your claims
        about my statements from quotations from my posts and, as usual, you ignore
        the request -- because, of course, you can't meet it.

        If you want to respond to me, again, why don't you quote Kierkegaard?
        Better yet, perhaps you should quit writing about him so much and try
        reading him more?

        Jim R


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