Re: Christian Repetition and Atheistic Ethicism
- 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
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.
- 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
You know, people who get published in peer review journals do disagree with
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.
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?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]