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

Re: The Ethical and the Moral

Expand Messages
  • Bill
    ... JIm R., Inward is understood to be looking outside. This is your misunderstanding. You insist to want Kierkegaard to conform to this mediocrity. You
    Message 1 of 99 , Mar 31, 2007
      --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "James Rovira"
      <jamesrovira@...> wrote:
      JIm R., "Inward" is understood to be looking outside. This is your
      misunderstanding. You insist to want Kierkegaard to conform to this
      mediocrity. You simply cannot take time out a pre-established
      spatialized continuum and impose your own privileged seriality on to
      the "instant". The moment is basic to Kierkegaard, and either you
      know where you've read it, or not. Either you read Kierkegaard or
      make it up. That is your choice, not mine.

      "ambiguity in which time and eternity touch one another" is
      Kierkegaarad's definition of the instant. If you understand this
      ambiguity at all, it would be a question that itself is an illusion.
      It is already a question that requires more questioning. To
      attribute something by which could refer to "inner self" would no
      longer make eternity transparent. It would loose its ambiguity.
      Sartre is clearer on this, and perhaps Don is correct that Sartre is
      much more influenced by Kierkegaard than I thought.

      If you want to read Kierkegaard this is what he writes of the eternal,

      "the expression of the fact that the self cannot of itself attain and
      remain in equilibrium and rest by itself, but only by relating itself
      to that power which constituted the whole relation (Sickness, p.

      There is no mention of any inner self, but implies movement which
      itself becomes a question for those who have can conceive of the
      ambiguity without trying to find a priviledged realtionship to the
      eternal by reducing it to the temporal, and therefore something that
      even animals could find a reward for seeking. My God, dogs become as
      self-regarding as the bourgeois!

      Hannay does agree that a "psychologically self-contained existence
      does apply to Kierkegaard's concept of the self. Towards the end of
      Repetition, Constantius says according to Hannay, that
      'a religious individual...rests in itself and disdains all childish

      You insist on inventing this innerness in the same way that a child
      seeks in its pettiness what is "mine". Bill

      > Bill -- what of your post is reflected in Kierkegaard's thought and
      > can it be found? Is Heidegger's notion of transparency the same as
      > Kierkegaard's? Do you have a K text to cite alongside your
      Heidegger text?
      > I absolutely agree that self is never imposed on us from without,
      but growth
      > or development in Kierkegaard is by a movement -inward-. That
      > though, that our early lives and our transitional lives are not
      > characterized by inwardness -- we're still allowing the external to
      > us to some degree. Hence, in the best cases we keep moving inward.
      > Jim R
    • Bill
      ... wrote: Jim R., Don t understand what you mean that freedom is posible . God is decidely not a paradox self-consciously given. We would
      Message 99 of 99 , Jun 12, 2007
        --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "James Rovira"
        <jamesrovira@...> wrote:
        Jim R., Don't understand what you mean that "freedom is posible".
        God is decidely not a paradox self-consciously given. We would have
        to understand what freedom is prior to claiming it exists. Our
        understanding of God is something willed that is a change in
        ourselves, and not the other way around. There isn't a change in
        ourselves that creates our understanding of God, or a sense of our
        understanding of freedom. Bill

        As Kierkegaard writes, there is

        "passion for a paradox not a search for understanding that inspires
        that leap" (Philosophical Fragments, p. 37 ff)".

        As I've written before, I don't think you understand what Kierkegaard
        is about, since you lack any experience of what he describing. Bill
        > Bill -- I don't think the incarnation moves us toward understanding
        > totality of what God has created so much as brought God down to our
        > so that we can comprehend what we need to know of him, and so that
        > is possible -- rather than just being overwhelmed with a Divine
        > Kierkegaard --or at least Climacus in CUP -- makes quite a bit deal
        of the
        > fact that we never escape our own finitude, that our understanding
        of "it
        > all" is always from within it all and not above it all. So we never
        > comprehend any totality. That is reserved for God.
        > Jim R
        > On 6/9/07, Bill <billybob98103@...> wrote:
        > >
        > > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com<kierkegaardians%
        > > "James Rovira"
        > > <jamesrovira@> wrote:
        > > Jim R., I'm a bit confused, since if God becomes human then we
        > > believe that God gives us the will to understand him, and that he
        > > no needs because he created for himself our understanding of him?
        > > fact, the idea of being forgiven for sin is possibly his attempt
        > > relieve us of the burden of our own limited understanding.
        > >
        > > Of course this belief in our ability to understand the totality of
        > > what God created is dependent on the idea of freedom. It is this
        > > gives us the ability to decide what it is that God created.
        > > Otherwise, why would we as Kierkegaard describe our existence as
        > > we "strive" to understand? Thanks for your helpful insights, as
        > > usually are.
        > > Bill
        > >
        > >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.