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

Re: [Kierkegaardians] Re: The Language of Reflection

Expand Messages
  • James Rovira
    When did I say anything about a system, Bill? In Concluding Unscientific Postscript, Climacus describes humor as the transitional phase between
    Message 1 of 74 , Feb 25, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      When did I say anything about a "system," Bill?  In Concluding Unscientific Postscript, Climacus describes humor as the transitional phase between Religiousness A and B.  That is all.  If I sounded like I was systematizing, that is because Climacus sounds like he is systematizing in CUP.  But at the same time, he mocks those who reduce themselves to elements within a system.

      You've read CUP, right?   Or are you just quoting what other people say about it again?

      Jim R

      On 2/25/07, Bill <billybob98103@...> wrote:

      --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "James Rovira"
      <jamesrovira@...> wrote:
      Jim R., Sorry, but humour is not a part of any system you would create
      to explain your life, or the life another. That is merely the violence
      of "double-mindedness" that puts a happy face on being a systematizer.
      Instead, it is what is "left over" from any limitations of a system to
      explain the finite world. It is religiousness A that cannot over come
      its immanence that prevents realising Religiousness B.


    • Will Brown
      JS, I just posted something to JR that was, in fact, also meant as a response to you summarizing my general position with respect to our First Chunk discourse.
      Message 74 of 74 , Mar 9, 2007
      • 0 Attachment

        JS, I just posted something to JR that was, in fact, also meant as a response to you summarizing my general position with respect to our First Chunk discourse. So, I had not abandoned the quest completely, just thought I would approach it from another angle; like backing off to the general view instead of being bogged down in the particulars.

        I was just this morning working on the second chunk, which I found interesting, but difficult. The difficulty is one of finding the best mode of response, but I shall light upon one and toss another chunk at you.  ----willy
        --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "jimstuart46" <jjimstuart@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > Dear Willy,
        >
        > In your post 5543 ("Chunk-Chunk"), you misunderstand what I
        > wrote in my post 5541 ("Re: 1st Chunk").
        >
        > Here if what you write, with my comment first in blue, and you reply in
        > brown:
        >
        > << Thank you for you post 5527. Whilst you clarify a number of things, I
        > don't see you as saying anything new in the post, so I don't have
        > anything to say in response apart from that you didn't actually give me
        > the page references I was after. What I would like, if possible, is the
        > Hong page numbers for these three quotes from the Steere edition of PH:
        > >>
        >
        > JS, I was about to settle down for some more chunking when what you said
        > above finally sank in. Yep, I was too dense to catch it the first time
        > around. Since my "more chunking" would be a continuation of my prior
        > chunking, and in that you saw nothing new that would require a response,
        > why then should I expect a response to that which I was about to create?
        > Well, then, thought I, to whom should I then be speaking if I were to
        > continue chunking? Perhaps to myself, which I must admit I do much of
        > around here? How about the clown? Perfect thought I. So be it! Why beat
        > a dead horse when there is a live clown around? ----willy
        >
        > When I said I did not see anything new in your post I was referring just
        > to your post 5541, which seemed to me to be the point where the "1st
        > Chunk" thread petered out.
        >
        > Your previous four posts to me 5464, 5468, 5469 & 5488 all contained a
        > lot of new stuff, and as I remarked in my post 5474 ("Re: The
        > Language of Reflection (part 2)"), they "helped me to improve my
        > understanding of your interpretation of K, and they have also helped me
        > to progress my own understanding of K."
        >
        > If you recall, your "1st Chunk" post 5488 was a response to only
        > the first two paragraphs of my post 5474 – the part dealing with the
        > question of whether "in eternity" referred to the here and now
        > or life after death or perhaps even both of these.
        >
        > In the rest of my post 5474 I talked about a number of issues relating
        > to "the absolute view of the self-change". In particular I ask
        > you a number of questions about your view concerning which I am keen to
        > hear what you have to say. I am sure in answering my questions you will
        > be saying something new to me, otherwise I would have no need for asking
        > you the questions.
        >
        > If you are now bored with the subject matter of the thread "The
        > Language of Reflection (part 2)", please do not trouble yourself to
        > respond to the rest of my post 5474, but as I say, if you do respond, I
        > will read your reply/replies with interest.
        >
        > To make things easy I will copy and paste below the section of my post
        > 5474 which you have not responded to.
        >
        > Yours,
        >
        > Jim
        >
        >
        >
        > Extract from my post 5474 ("Re: The Language of Reflection (part
        > 2)"):
        >
        > A second criticism is that your description of the absolute way of
        > self-change is based on an anti-Christian theory of personal identity.
        > According to the absolute way, you have existed as two different
        > individuals or selves: the aesthetic individual "WB1" before your
        > aesthetic-to-ethical transition and the ethical individual "WB2" after
        > your absolute transition.
        >
        > As I understand you, the individual WB1 went out of existence in the
        > late sixties (or was it the seventies?), and the new individual WB2 was
        > created out of nothing. Although the US state authorities only recognize
        > one person "William Brown", in reality there have been two people who
        > have possessed the official ID for "William Brown".
        >
        > Whilst I have no worries about the US authorities being in the wrong, I
        > suggest that K does not hold to this "two persons" view of "William
        > Brown" because it is contrary to traditional Christian doctrine.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > As I read K he was a conservative when it came to traditional Christian
        > doctrine – he had no wish to question or amend what he understood as
        > Christian dogma.
        >
        > It is traditional Christian doctrine that God created each of us as one
        > person or self at our conception. This self continues as one self
        > throughout its earthly existence, and continues as the same self after
        > death when it is judged and ends up in heaven or hell.
        >
        > Each of us, as one single individual, is at death responsible for all
        > our actions throughout our earthly lives, in particular we are each
        > responsible for the sins we have committed.
        >
        > On your two-self view, WB2 is not responsible for the actions or sins of
        > WB1, as WB2 is not the same person as WB1.
        >
        > Your view, which fits more closely with Eastern ideas of the self, is
        > heretical with respect to Christianity, and, I suggest, K would not
        > countenance such a view.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Let me pick up these sentences of yours where you criticise the relative
        > way of self-change:
        >
        > << There are a few difficulties in applying the above form of
        > self-change to SK's words, even if he, from time to time, refers not to
        > death but a dying to. The first and foremost being that in many places
        > he describes the self-change in terms that may be read as absolutely
        > requiring an absolute change of identity. >>
        >
        > Can you give references and/or quotes for these "many places" where K
        > describes the self-change as requiring "an absolute change of identity"?
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > In your post 5468 you ask:
        >
        > << How can you see an absolute disjunction in the transition from the
        > esthetic to the ethical and not see what I am talking about? We must not
        > have the same idea of what an absolute disjunction means when it comes
        > to subjectivity. What do you mean? >>
        >
        > I interpret K's talk of an "absolute disjunction" as implying an
        > absolute change of the individual (the self) as a result of the leap
        > from the lower sphere to the higher sphere. For me the absolute
        > disjunction means the (same) self changing absolutely, for you it means
        > that the old self dies (is annihilated) and the new self is created from
        > nothing.
        >
        > It would be helpful if you could list all the places where K uses the
        > term "absolute disjunction". From memory, I recall he only uses the term
        > to describe the religiousness A – to – religiousness B
        > transition; not, as you believe, the aesthetic-to-ethical transition.
        > But I may be wrong here.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > The quotes you give from your post 5469 are very helpful and do show
        > that K did distinguish between "bad" reflection and "good" reflection.
        > Bad reflection is the kind of objective reflection of the Hegelians who
        > "cast all Christian relationships into reflection".
        >
        > Good reflection is subjective reflection, "a god fearing reflection", "
        > a reflection on himself, which is itself an action", "the infinite
        > reflection", "another kind of reflection, specifically, that of
        > inwardness, of possession, whereby it belongs to the subject and no one
        > else", "the reflection of inwardness … the subjective thinker's
        > double reflection".
        >
        > However, whilst this kind of reflection is worthwhile, even essential
        > for the individual who has become ensnared by objective reflection, it
        > must always be remembered that "one does not become a Christian through
        > reflection".
        >
        > With regard to the question of whether K saw it as his task to "cast all
        > the Christian relationships into reflection", the following quote does
        > seem to support your view:
        >
        > "Thus he completed the task of reflection—to cast Christianity,
        > becoming a Christian, wholly and fully into reflection. The purity of
        > his heart was to will only one thing." (PV, Hong, p. 97)
        >
        > I do not have a copy of PV, so I would like to read this quote within
        > its context. Could you put the quote embedded in its paragraph with the
        > preceding and following paragraph included as well?
        >
        > It is not clear to me who the "he" in the quote refers to, or who has
        > "the task of reflection".
        >
        > I am not sure to what extent the quotes you include support your
        > interpretation of K. For example, I note that "the leap is the category
        > of decision", which fits my interpretation of the aesthetic-to-ethical
        > transition exactly, but is an embarrassment to your view, as I don't
        > think you see the aesthetic-to-ethical transition as essentially "a
        > decision".
        >
        > [End of extract from my post 5474]
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.